Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

GAIRLOCH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

SHETLAND ISLANDS COUNCIL (HAM VOE, FOULA)
ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to the business of the House. The whole House is grateful to you for the protection and consideration that you give to Back Benchers. You may have noticed that the Order Paper states that Prime Minister's Questions are to begin at 3.15 pm. Surely the Leader of the Opposition deserves protection as well, and it may help him out of his discomforture to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that Her Majesty's Stationery Office also deserves protection. It was a mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Ford Motor Company (UK)

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the chairman of the Ford Motor Company (UK) and what subjects were discussed.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): My right hon. Friend met the chairman of Ford of Britain and some of his colleagues on 14 October. Discussion covered a wide range of topics.

Mr. Favell: Given the distressing news last week that Austin Rover's share of the home market is now below 13 per cent., has the Department any intention of reopening negotiations with the Ford Motor Company (UK)? That would be eminently sensible from the taxpayer's point of view and would protect perhaps not one or two Dumbos in management but the rest of the employees of Austin Rover.

Mr. Shaw: I understand my hon. Friend's question, but the position remains as reported to the House on 6 February, namely, that the possibility of the sale of Austin Rover to Ford will not be pursued.

Mr. Park: Does the Minister agree that the continual picking at Austin Rover does incalculable damage to that company's future?

Mr. Shaw: I entirely agree with that observation. It is a fact that Austin Rover continues to compete against a substantial view cultivated by many people outside the House and by some hon. Members that seeks to diminish the company's prospect of succeeding.

Mr. Norris: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park). Those of us who greatly welcomed the statement to the House the other day about having confidence in the future of Austin Rover very much regret the continual sniping at that company, which has enough difficulties to overcome in establishing itself as a niche marketer without that sort of additional difficulty.

Mr. Shaw: I welcome my hon. Friend's observation. It is essential that all hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise the realities of the situation.

Mr. Evans: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of the Ford Motor Company (UK), will he tell him that Pilkington Brothers of St. Helens is a major glass supplier to that company and that the best way of safeguarding its supplies for the future would be for the chairman to use his influence in the City of London to ensure that Pilkington remains an independent company?

Mr. Shaw: I admire the hon. Gentleman's observations, but he will understand that I cannot comment on them, other than to say that Ford motors are produced in this country with a very high United Kingdom component level.

Product Liability

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received on the subject of product liability since 12 November.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): Since 12 November the Department has received only five representations on the subject of product liability.
That is perhaps not surprising in view of the wide consultation we undertook last year on the implementation of the EC directive on product liability, when we issued more than 5,000 copies of our consultative document and received over 200 replies.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it correct to describe the Government's policy on this issue as a balance between introducing further rights of redress to injured consumers and containing industrial costs by allowing manufacturers certain residual defences? If so, many of us agree with that, as otherwise the cost of product liability insurance, if it is available at all, would increase considerably and ultimately so would the cost of products to the consumer.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is because we desire to continue to encourage innovation that the development risk defence has been retained. It is


not only the cost but the availability of insurance that is important in that respect, as the Association of British Insurers recently confirmed.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister accept that many believe that the acceptance of development risk liability has been created by powerful lobbying, particularly on the part of the pharmaceutical industry? Will he undertake to look at this matter again, especially as the insurance industry has indicated that it can be made available at relatively little cost? Does he accept, for instance, that those who suffered as a result of Thalidomide would not have received compensation under the development risk clause?

Mr. Howard: On the last point, the answer is no. A legal decision was never reached on the liability of the manufacturers of Thalidomide since the case was settled out of court. In the absence of that decision it is irresponsible for anyone to make judgments as to whether the Consumer Protection Bill would ensure compensation for victims like those of Thalidomide and I certainly do not intend to do so. Since then, the Medicines Act 1968 provides for a comprehensive system of licensing which makes it unlawful for medical products to be manufactured, sold, supplied or imported except in accordance with appropriate licences and clinical trial certificates. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, representing as he does a constituency in which the aviation industry is such an important interest, should call for the elimination of the development risk defence.

Mr. Williams: Why are the Government willing to allow manufacturers to escape paying damages by pleading the development risk defence when Belgium and France are making no such allowance, when Germany has made it clear that it will not allow that defence in relation to drugs, medicines and pharmaceutical products, and when the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Pearson commission, which was set up in the aftermath of the Thalidomide tragedy, said that the defence should not be allowed? Why have the Government surrendered to the industrial lobby and why have they abandoned the consumer, who, in future, could be left without any action for damages in any Thalidomide-type disaster?

Mr. Howard: I have answered the question on Thalidomide. It is important to recognise that the development risk defence places upon manufacturers the burden of raising and proving it. The defence is defined in very precise terms and it will be necessary for the manufacturer, if he is to rely on it, to show that no producer of products of the same description might have been expected to discover the defect. It would not be sufficient to point to particular testing difficulties encountered by him or even that he had followed procedures adopted by other manufacturers. He must have taken all the steps that he might have been expected to take by the informed observer. In those circumstances, it it is right that he should have that defence.

Copyright

Mr. Hanley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received relating to the introduction of amending legislation on copyright law.

The Minister for Information Technology (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I have received several representations from hon. Members, individual companies, industry representative bodies and private individuals urging the Government to introduce legislation on copyright during the present parliamentary Session or inquiring generally as to when such legislation might be expected.

Mr. Hanley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgency with which this legislation is awaited in many quarters, not least by the music industry? Is my hon. Friend still committed to the just and necessary levy on blank tapes?

Mr. Pattie: Yes.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that the present law is wholly inadequate to deal with, for instance, the development of high technology? Is he aware that whereas one accepts the need to protect intellectual property, the present law allows huge corporations to sue for alleged breach of copyright by smaller companies which, before the case comes to court, are, of course, out of business? Does the Minister intend to introduce a Bill and, if so, when?

Mr. Pattie: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the White Paper that one of the proposals contained therein concerns the speeding up of processes of patent law and the introduction of new procedures which will make it easier, and therefore less costly, for smaller firms to have access to the patent procedure. The introduction of a Bill will be as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposals regarding intellectual property in respect of the broad base of engineering design will endanger far more jobs in the component industries than it will safeguard in intial manufacturing industry and that the consumer's interest is wholly opposed to any such legislation, so the balance of advantage for Britain must be against it?

Mr. Pattie: I am aware of the strength of representations on this. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we have very much an open mind on this. We want to get the balance right. So far as we are concerned, the question is still open.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I understand the reasons for the delay, as it must be very difficult to translate the White Paper into legislation, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the long-term development of two firms in my constituency will be inhibited by the delay? Cannot firms of that kind be told that there will be a delay of, say, 10 years—that would suit me—before such changes will take place?

Mr. Pattie: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to delays or to companies concerned about components in the motor trade. As I have just said, we are concerned to get the balance right in this very complicated issue. We are still discussing with the industry what the relevant procedures would be.

Mr. Key: I congratulate my hon. Friend on having the courage to grasp this very prickly nettle, but will he ensure that he hits the right target and does not bring down small firms such as Moore's Pistons and Auto and General Electrical in my constituency, which would be especially hard hit, as the alternative to their manufacturing might well be greater import penetration?

Mr. Pattie: That is precisely the kind of point that we wish to take into account.

Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Secretary of State was previously at the Department, on 22 December 1983, he promised effective and resolute action to tackle the problem of counterfeiting and issued a pamphlet on the subject? Is he aware that three years later, in the peak buying period before Christmas, our street markets are flooded with counterfeit perfume, after-shave, toys and tapes? In November last year the Under-Secretary of State said that he was convinced that no further action was needed. Is that still the Government's view? Do they intend to take any action at all to stop this multi-million pound rip-off of the British public, or will they simply issue another pamphlet?

Mr. Pattie: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent EEC directive on this. We shall wish to harmonise our legal requirements with that directive. I believe that there is a better way forward under that regime, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party appear not to support.

Mr. Robert Atkins: We are grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend is prepared to consider this matter especially in relation to the automotive industry. May I emphasise how much hostility and strength of feeling there is in the components and automotive support industries, as shown in my letters to him from constituents and in representations from national organisations? Does he accept that to legislate in that specific area would cause enormous damage?

Mr. Pattie: I accept what my hon. Friend said. His representations and others are being taken into account in this complicated and difficult matter. We hope to reach a decision before too long.

Exports

Mr. Livsey: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received on Government support for exporters.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I receive frequent representations from industry about specific business opportunities overseas, and about services provided by the Government through the British Overseas Trade Board, which also advises the Government on these matters.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister look carefully at the CBI's "Business Manifesto", which expressly states that foreign Governments give their manufaturers far more support in relation to exports than is the case in this country?

Mr. Clarke: The budget of the British Overseas Trade Board will rise next year and the year after to more than £28 million. In addition, some £100 million has been spent by the Foreign Office in the past two years through its commercial councellors in overseas posts.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my hon. Friend heard the news from the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation that exports in the third quarter of this year were 20 per cent. up on last year and are now at an all-time record? Although the Opposition may have their own reasons for running down those achievements, is it not a

fact that important sections of British industry are now competing very well in the world markets? The best thing for my hon. Friend's Department would be to stay well clear of those industries.

Mr. Clark: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his advice. If that is the wish of the footwear industry, I am sure that my Department, whose resources are necessarily limited, will be only too glad to comply.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the Minister aware that no industrial sector has tried harder in the export field than the British power plant industry? As the Department of Trade and Industry is its sponsoring Department, what discussions does the Minister have with his right hon. Friend at the Department of Energy about securing a base domestic work load for that industrial sector?

Mr. Clark: I have periodic consultations with my right hon. Friend at the Department of Energy.

Mr. Conway: Bearing in mind the success of my hon. Friend's Department in supporting the British Overseas Trade Board, the regional development councils and the chambers of trade in helping, assisting and advising exporters, will he tell the House what steps the Department could take to assist those exporters based in areas that are not in receipt of such Government largesse, especially those in rural areas?

Mr. Clark: All the facilities of the British Overseas Trade Board are available, and they are especially geared towards assisting smaller firms—such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency—which might not have full first-hand experience of exporting but are none the less well placed by reason of their products and their competitiveness to penetrate overseas markets. It is precisely those sectors that the BOTB is geared to assist.

Mr. Ron Brown: Has the Minister received any representations from NEI, bearing in mind that company's fine achievement in exporting submarine lifting gear to Libya? May I remind the Minister that that company is one of the biggest contributors to Tory party funds? It is also significant in the north-east of England and in Scotland. Has the Minister heard from that company?

Mr. Clark: I have frequent consulations with NEI. I am glad to pay tribute to the role that it plays in our whole overseas projects business. I am sure that it would reciprocate by acknowledging the help that it receives under the aid and trade provision.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Weir group of Glasgow, which has been making considerable efforts to develop its pump exports in Asia, and which was recently visited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has expressed considerable gratitude for the support and encouragement the Department has given it in developing these exports? Is that not precisely the role that his Department should be undertaking?

Mr. Clark: I am happy to receive my hon. Friend's endorsement. As he said, the Weir group was recently visited by my right hon. Friend. I am glad that it is satisfied with the assistance that it is receiving, which is precisely along this lines that we hope to advance.

Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Minister aware that during the time of the Government the number of staff in his


Department working in exports has fallen from 1,200 to 700, that the number of overseas trade fairs has fallen by one seventh, the number of trade missions by a third, and the number of commercial counsellors attached to the Foreign Office by one sixth? Is not the outcome of that record that, having inherited a £3 billion surplus in manufacturing trade, the Government have successfully managed to convert it into a deficit of £4 billion? Why does the Minister not face that fact and admit that his Department's cuts have cut our exports?

Mr. Clark: I have already told the House that the budget is increasing for this year, next year and the year following. The hon. Gentleman referred to the decline in our manufacturing exports, but—as I hope to explain in answer to a later question, if we reach it—manufacturing exports have increased. The trend continues to be upwards.

Touring Abroad (Prepaid Packages)

Dr. Michael Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce measures to regulate the sale of prepaid packages for touring abroad.

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to introduce legislation to regulate package tours. The Government favour self-regulation by the travel industry provided that it operates effectively. The effectiveness of the Association of British Travel Agents' code of conduct is currently being reviewed by the Director General of Fair Trading.

Dr. Clark: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are travel firms in Britain which try to persuade Britons to go to America by selling them hotel vouchers which purport to offer a discounted rate whereas, in the majority of cases, the vouchers are more expensive than the hotels would be if they were booked on the spot? Is he further aware that the majority of the hotels also require a surcharge to be paid and that, in this way, British tourists are being cheated? Does my hon. and learned Friend intend to look into this matter? Will he refer it to the Director General of Fair Trading?

Mr. Howard: This is not a difficulty which has previously been drawn to the Department's attention, but if my hon. Friend will send me details of the cases that he has come across, I shall certainly look into them.

Mr. Heffer: Is it not clear that many ordinary working people get rooked and find themselves in great difficulty? They go on tours only to find that the hotel does not exist or that it is overbooked or that it is nothing like the brochure says. They get a pretty raw deal. Does the Minister listen to the excellent programme called "Breakaway" on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday mornings? Does he agree that if it was not for that programme, many people would not get a square deal? Is it not time that the Government did something about protecting ordinary people on package tours so that they can have a decent holiday, and, which is contrary to the Government's nonsensical philosophy, have proper protection?

Mr. Howard: I am a frequent listener to the "Breakaway" programme and I welcome the publicity that it can draw to the cases of people who need help. They have remedies under the law and under the arbitration provisions of the ABTA code of conduct. Those provisions should be drawn to the public's attention.

Engineering Industry

Mr. Tony Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the engineering industry.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The prospects for the United Kingdom engineering industry are encouraging and I feel sure it will continue to make a vital contribution to our economic prosperity in the future.
Output has been rising steadily over the past five years and output per head has risen by 30 per cent., demonstrating a significant improvement in productivity.
The Confederation of British Industry "Industrial Trends" survey for October indicated that both mechanical and electrical engineering firms were expecting new orders to increase over the next four months. For the medium term, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research forecasts mechanical engineering growth at 1·5 per cent. per annum and electrical engineering at 3·5 per cent. per annum, the fastest for any manufacturing sector over the next five years.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister paints a rosy picture of the industry, but it is the same industry which has lost 1 million jobs since the Government came to power and the same industry which can no longer offer a future to young people in my constituency and many others. Do the Government intend to use the public sector to revitalise the engineering industry in the many areas where the public sector is an important purchaser, as that is what we have not seen in the past and why we are still losing jobs in Trafford and elsewhere?

Mr. Shaw: I do not deny that there has been a substantial contraction in employment and a significant restriction on the number of apprenticeships available, as the hon. Gentleman knows from discussions that we have had previously. He will be aware, however, that public sector purchasing plays a vital part, especially in the power generation industry.

Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities for the engineering industry are very much greater than the growth forecasts that he quoted and that the proof of this is to be found by visiting any factory and seeing the vast quantity of imported machinery that is used? The challenge is therefore to British companies to identify what sort of equipment is imported and to get into the market and produce it itself.

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many sectors of engineering in which there is a high level of import penetration and in which United Kingdom producers could meet the demand. With the reduced costs that many are now carrying, they should be able to meet such demand if they have a mind to do so.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that one indicator of the dreadful decline in our steel and engineering industries is that the Ministry of Defence has now invited Thyssen to tender for certain engineering steels required by Her Majesty's armed forces? Is the Minister further aware that the Federal Republic will not allow any other power to tender for similar supplies for the German services? Is that not an appalling example of the deplorable negligence of the past five years?

Mr. Shaw: I shall look into whether we are able to tender for other European orders. The hon. Gentleman


will be among the first to recognise that, with the wider Community market available for the full range of engineering products, the prospects for the British to compete are increasing.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: In considering the future of the engineering industry, will my hon. Friend take note of the recent survey from the Birmingham chamber of industry and commerce, which showed that the two greatest inhibitors to growth were perceived by their members to be high local authority rates on the one hand and high interest rates on borrowing on the other?

Mr. Shaw: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. With regard to his latter point, clearly the Government will do their best in the management of the economy to ensure that interest rates do not increase but continue to decline on average. With regard to the first point, my hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday we passed a Bill which shows the forecast way in which local authority financing will be conducted.

Mr. Eastham: When will the Minister recognise the gravity of the position of the engineering industry, which has seen a decline of 30 per cent. since 1979? I draw to the attention of the Government the decline of confidence, because of all the takeover bids, which is having an adverse effect on the engineering industry. What will he do about it?

Mr. Shaw: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I understand it, and I know that in the Manchester area there have been significant contractions. However, I was present at the awards given by the Jaguar company to many of its components suppliers, 44 of which have pursuit of excellence awards. The winners for the past two years have come from the hard-pressed area of Yorkshire, of which I am proud to be a representative.

Mr. Thurnham: I am a practising member of the industry which last week His Royal Highness Prince Charles described as being not quite all that we would like it to be. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the measures that the Government are introducing should ensure that our engineering industry has every opportunity to take advantage of all the new technologies?

Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right, and the take-up of computerisation in the engineering industry is a good example of what has happened. There is now much greater take-up of computerisation in the engineering industry, and this has shown a growth that is four times more than that which we inherited in 1979.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister aware of the enormous opportunites in advanced electronic engineering which the GEC-Nimrod project offers? In view of the crucial role that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry may play in the ultimate decision, may we be assured that he will fight for Britain's interest when this matter is discussed in Cabinet?

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. It would not be for me to comment on what my right hon. Friend would say, but obviously the matter is of great concern and will be discussed fully in Government before a decision is made.

Nationalised Industries

Mr. Michael Forsyth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of his Department's current expenditure goes to support nationalised industries; and what was the comparable proportion in 1979.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Paul Channon): In 1979–80 about a half the Department of Trade and Industry total expenditure was used to support the Department's nationalised industries. For 1986–87, the figure is more like one tenth.

Mr. Forsyth: Do not these figures throw into dramatic relief the success of the Government's policies of privatising the nationalised industries and insisting that nationalised industries are more competitive? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this must mean that around £900 million is available for health and education and the social services, which would otherwise be squandered on inefficient industry if we were to follow the prescriptions of the Opposition?

Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The success of privatisation and of turning most of the nationalised industries round to be better run and more efficient, with many of them making profits, is a major achievement for the Government. It has had the effect of releasing resources that can be used better elsewhere.

Mr. Hoyle: I have noted the Government's hostility towards nationalised industries. How will our economy be helped by allowing Leyland Trucks to be taken over by an American or Dutch company? Would not such action lead to a loss of jobs and to the destruction of the indigenous lorry industry?

Mr. Channon: If it is hostile to nationalised industries to try to make them pay rather than lose money, that is a curious way to describe hostility. It is in the national interest that nationalised industries should pay their way. That must be good for the economy and for the people working in them, who want a secure future. I answered questions on the whole matter of Leyland and the truck industry the other week and I have nothing to add to the comments that I made then. The hon. Gentleman will know that talks are taking place.

Mr. Gow: Are there any publicly owned industries for which my right hon. Friend is currently responsible through his Department which he hopes will not be denationalised by the end of the next Parliament?

Mr. Channon: I certainly hope that we shall make substantial progress in denationalising during the next Parliament with the enthusiastic support of my hon. Friend. Let us put steel at the top of the list.

Mr. Ashdown: Leaving aside for the moment the question whether the general consumer has benefited from this move—particularly in the case of British Telecom—to convert public monopolies into private monopolies, will the Minister explain to the House why he has taken the money that he has saved and squandered it on this year's accounts instead of reinvesting it in Britain in the long term? Is this not simply a waste of the nation's assets?

Mr. Channon: I do not follow what the hon. Member is saying. I am usually attacked by the Opposition because my Department's budget is not sufficient, yet the hon.


Gentleman has accused me of squandering the money. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's party wanted to increase public expenditure rather than to reduce it. Over the past seven years the Department of Trade and Industry budget has rightly been reduced as we have cut down on wasteful expenditure on the nationalised industries. The money has been used to far better effect in the economy.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the nature and size of the current deficit in the balance of trade in manufactured goods.

Mr. Alan Clark: In October there was a deficit of £0·5 billion.

Mr. Evans: In view of the appalling figure that the Minister has announced to the House, will he acknowledge that one company that has always made a positive contribution to Britain's balance of trade is Pilkington Brothers of St. Helens, a world leader in the manufacture of glass? Does the Minister agree that there is no industrial logic in BTR's bid for Pilkington? Does he further agree that it is in the best interests of the work force, customers, the community of St. Helens as well as the shareholders that Pilkington Brothers remains an independent company?

Mr. Clark: It is impossible for me to comment on that matter until we receive the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading.

Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the ways that we can close the export-import gap is to produce goods of the right quality, at the right price and delivered on time? Will he therefore join me in congratulating all sections of the Rover Group on showing incredibly increased export potential? Will he further join me in congratulating the work force at the factory in Longbridge in Birmingham on drawing the first quality bonus issued under the present payment scheme? Is this not the way to expand into markets such as Japan and France, where the Mini sells so well?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the exploits of the Rover Group. Of course, it is quality, price, delivery and after sales service in the manufacturing area that will allow us to increase the rate of expansion. Our manufacturing exports are increasing in volume and value, and that will allow the increase to be maintained and will close the gap.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that those of us representing constituencies that are heavily dependent on manufacturing industries want to know when the Government will get our trade in the manufacturing industries into surplus? Does he not think that the EEC regulations affecting country of origin labelling will have detrimental effects if introduced in this country?

Mr. Clark: It is not the Government's business or responsibility to get manufacturing trade into surplus. Exports of manufacturers have increased in volume and value for the past three years. The gap is accounted for by the vast increase in the level of imports. Imports are the sum of about 25 million individual decisions and preferences by the British people as consumers and

business men, based on an assessment of the factors that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) drew attention to earlier—quality, price, delivery and the many factors that add up to individual choice in these matters.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my hon. Friend again emphasise the fact that, if they are to export successfully, businesses must have the right price, quality and delivery? It is no good for Governments to try to think that they achieve that success. It is up to the individual firm. In this respect, will my hon. Friend care to examine the success of Ruston Gas Turbines in my constituency? That company exports over 19 per cent. of its products because it meets these high specifications. There is one thing I should like to ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked a question.

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The record of Ruston Turbines is exemplary. I know that that company continues to sell in extremely difficult markets around the world.

Mr. John Smith: Given that it is the unique contribution of the Government that put Britain's balance of trade in manufactured goods into serious deficit for the first time in economic history, and given that we are heading for a deficit in excess of £5 billion in the balance of trade in manufactured goods this year, what action will the Government take to tackle this serious problem?

Mr. Clark: I am amazed at the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to ascribe responsibility to Government and to Government policy. [Interruption.] Very well. Does he attribute blame to the United States Government and to their fiscal policy, which is the very reverse of our own? Their deficit in manufacturing is over £100 billion and has increased over the past four years. They are two totally different Governments with totally different policies. In each case, are the Government responsible?

British Rail

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for British Steel.

Mr. Channon: The British Steel Corporation's recently announced half-year profit of £68 million was encouraging and represents further progress towards sustained profitability. The corporation is now in a much better position to meet the competitive challenges presented by the market.

Mr. Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is excellent news? Do I understand from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) a few moments ago that proposals will be brought before the House after the next election if Government Members retain the confidence of the people of this country in regard to the privatisation of the steel industry?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I look forward to seeing him serve on the Standing Committee that deals with the Bill.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that the management and staff of the steel corporation


deserve our congratulations on the success that they have had in recent times? Will it not impede further progress to have a great debate about the ownership of the corporation? Does the Secretary of State agree that the most important thing now is to wind down the Common Market structure of quotas and subsidies so that the steel corporation can compete for overseas markets on a fair basis?

Mr. Channon: In general, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, and particularly with what he said in the first part of his supplementary question. It reflects the greatest credit on those employed by British Steel. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that.

Mr. Warren: Following the last question, what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to hack down the quota system? Does it not hold back the ability of British Steel to get into export markets in Europe where other companies are not as efficient as British Steel?

Mr. Channon: I understand and have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend said. Our objective is the restoration of a free steel market. This can best be achieved gradually, without market disruption and with the support of all member states in the industry. That is certainly our aim. We have received one report and an analysis from the Commission. We shall receive more early next year.

Dr. Bray: Is there any commitment that the Government would or could give that a privatised steel industry would maintain steel production at the five integrated sites?

Mr. Channon: The position on the five integrated sites remains exactly as it has always been. An assurance has always been contained in the strategy up to 1988. The steel industry, like all other industries, is subject to risk. No Government would responsibly give an open-ended guarantee on the future of any works. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I stand by the assurances that have already been given.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend improve on the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and announce that he will introduce the steel denationalisation Bill in this Parliament and not in the next?

Mr. Channon: That rather depends on the date of the general election, which is not entirely within my gift. I note my hon. Friend's equal enthusiasm to play a detailed part in the denationalisation of steel, whenever it may come.

Insider Dealing

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to seek further powers to investigate insider dealing.

Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in due course be bringing into effect those parts of section 178 of the Financial Services Act which could not be commenced on 15 November, because they depend upon other provisions of the Act, such as those relating to the authorisation of investment businesses, being in force.

Mr. Dubs: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that studies of takeover bids in the first half of this year often reveal dramatic increases in share prices ahead of the bid dates? Does he agree that the only conclusion that can

be drawn from that and other evidence is that insider dealing is widespread and that a very nasty smell is coming from the City? Is there not, therefore, a need for rather more purposeful action to bring these people, who are often criminals, to book, or there will be a very bad reputation internationally for the City of London?

Mr. Howard: Whenever there are indications giving rise to suspicion, they are examined by the stock exchange, which reports appropriate cases to the Department. Any evidence of criminal activity will be investigated by the Department.

Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that anyone in the City who indulges in insider trading now, particularly after recent events, will know that, thanks to action by the Government, there is every probability that he will be promptly prosecuted?

Mr. Howard: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Minister recall that in January the House was assured that extra fraud lawyers would be recruited by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with additional support staff? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman notice last week's press release which said that, instead of that assurance being fulfilled, a moratorium was imposed on the DPP? There are no extra fraud lawyers and the additional support staff has been cut. Was the Department of Trade and Industry consulted about that moratorium? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman express a view? Given that lack of commitment, is it any wonder that, although the stock exchange investigates a suspected case of insider dealing every working day, his Government have managed to secure a conviction once a year?

Mr. Howard: Responsibility for prosecution of offences of insider dealing, which is what the question is about, rests with the Department. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the record of prosecutions between 1980 and 1986 bears no relation to the situation which now pertains following the new powers which are available to us and which we put into effect on 15 November.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that when insider dealing was introduced as an offence in the Companies Bill 1978 by the then Labour Government the Government proposed that it should be a civil charge? It was the Conservative Government in 1979 who introduced insider dealing as a criminal charge. Does that not show the Government's determination to stop this pernicious crime?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important to recall that, during the passage of the Financial Services Bill, the Labour party did not suggest a single additional power related to insider dealing over and above the powers that are now contained in the Financial Services Act.

Infrastructure (Investment)

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what future meetings he has arranged to discuss investment in national infrastructure.

Mr. Channon: None, Sir.

Mr. Alton: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is of the opinion that private sector investment in


infrastructure projects should be matched by a corresponding decrease in public funds? Instead of offering that view, would it not be better to ensure that, in projects such as the Mersey barrage, in which private enterprise has offered to put up about £220 million, private funding is matched in partnership with public funding to ensure that some of the 400,000 building workers who are languishing on the dole are given a useful job or work to do?

Mr. Channon: The Mersey barrage is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In general, I am in favour of private sector spending, as well as public sector spending, on the infrastructure. The House will be well aware of the enormous amount of such expenditure, which has frequently been outlined.

Mr. Marlow: Given that the private sector is to finance the Dartford bridge and is about to finance the Channel tunnel, is it not right to give the private investor the chance to enjoy the benefits of investing in these great opportunities and to save the taxpayers' money by encouraging the private investor rather than the public investor?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend. Private finance is certainly welcome, provided that it is cost-effective. We should consider specific proposals on their merits. The new bridge at Dartford shows that there are good cases. There are extra benefits, such as incentives to efficiency, from a wholly private sector project. My hon. Friend made a good point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Secretary of State said that investment by his Department had rightly been reduced, did he understand that the impact of that reduction has been felt in my part of the country, west Cumbria, where industrial investment has collapsed? Is he aware that under a Labour Government factories were opening all the time every year, and now they are closing? Why does he not restore the industrial assistance that was available under a Labour Government—and to the level that it was in the 1970s—and once again seek the restoration of the west Cumberland economy? We are in desperate need.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is a little unfair. He knows that since 1979 more than £770 million has been spent in the north-west on regional aid schemes which have created or safeguarded 72,000 jobs. There are also other schemes outside my Department. There is the Mersey basin campaign, the derelict land programme, the urban development grant and a host of other expenditures that have taken place. Of course, it suits Opposition Members to decry all that. We all know why they do it. They just do not want to hear any good news when it comes along.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the criteria for judging public sector infrastructure investment decisions have been much improved by this Government, those decisions are best made by private investors?

Mr. Channon: Yes, I agree, but there is also a place for public sector infrastructure. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been a massive increase in spending on infrastructure on such things as motorways and trunk roads, rail and housing. National Health Service spending is up 31 per cent. in real

terms. Capital spending on housing renovation is now £1·4 billion per annum. Those are all massive amounts of public sector money spent on infrastructure.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Secretary of State claiming credit for spending more money, or for spending less, because he is giving confusing replies? If, as he claims, investment in the north-west has safeguarded so many jobs, why does he not increase the investment and safeguard even more jobs?

Mr. Channon: I am not in any way giving confusing answers. I was asked a question about infrastructure in the north-west and I gave the House the facts about what has been spent in the north-west. The fact that the figures are creditable is something that the Labour party does not like.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State accept that channelling investment into such items will increase output and increase the number of jobs rather more—possibly substantially more—than tax cuts, which just go through to consumer expenditure and increase imports?

Mr. Channon: I hope that we can have both.

Japan (Ministerial Visit)

Mr. Forth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Japan.

Mr. Channon: My talks in Tokyo with Prime Minister Nakasone and other Ministers covered a range of trade and industrial matters. In particular, I underlined the need for urgent action to correct Japan's massive trade surpluses and to remove trade frictions such as the discriminatory taxation of imported alcoholic drinks. I also discussed ways of increasing British exports and improving access to the Japanese financial markets.

Mr. Forth: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. Can he give the House any further reassurance about the steps that the United Kingdom Government or the European Economic Community can take to guarantee fairer terms and a fairer balance of trade between our country and Europe on the one hand and Japan on the other?

Mr. Channon: There are several things going on which lead to there being more hope on this front. I do not wish to overstate the case.

Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has been saying that for seven years.

Mr. Channon: Yes, and before then, too. It has been said for a great deal longer than that. The hon. Gentleman should not imply that it is all the fault of one side of the House.
In answer to my hon. Friend's question, as he will know, the Community has already opened a GATT action on alcoholic drinks. We may have to consider further action under GATT if we do not obtain satisfaction.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that Japanese industry has been successful because the Japanese have been wise enough to invest in their industry and in new techniques, whereas our steel industry, for instance, suffered years of neglect under private ownership? Is that not a good reason for the Secretary of State to have second thoughts about any rash privatisation scheme?

Mr. Channon: I agree with much of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I certainly do not agree with the second part. When I recall that when the Government came to office the British Steel Corporation was losing about £600 million a year, I find the hon. Gentleman's remark astonishing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Beaumont-Dark.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: God bless you, Mr. Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, for the past seven years, we have been promised that, in one way or another, the Japanese will do better? The more Mr. Nakasone weeps about wishing to be loved, the more the balance of trade goes against us. Have we told the Japanese that we are prepared to take swift and strong action to stop one industry after another being ruined by Japan's unfair trade practices?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will understand that I have made no rash promises to the House—[Laughter.]Nor do I think that is an especially funny remark. I am trying to be absolutely frank and realistic. My hon. Friend is entirely right to make those comments, which have widespread support in the House. As to the general position, we shall have to take action under the GATT, perhaps on a range of matters. As for the specific issues, we may have to consider ensuring reciprocity in financial services. I shall have reciprocal powers to deal with this matter early next year and I shall not hesitate to use them if we do not get proper access to the Japanese financial markets.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. George Howarth: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet the Trades Union Congress to discuss investment in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Giles Shaw: My right hon. Friend and I meet the TUC regularly at the National Economic Development Council, where matters relevant to improving industrial performance are discussed. I have no plans for a separate meeting on this subject.

Mr. Howarth: If and when the Minister has a separate meeting on the subject, will he discuss the loss of manufacturing jobs at BICC in my constituency, especially the 55 jobs that have been lost in the high technology fibre optics unit—a unit which has a fine record of quality, price and delivery?

Mr. Shaw: I suspect that that is the hon. Gentleman's first question in the House, and I welcome him warmly to Question Time. I note what he said about BICC and I fully recognise its substantial record of quality and delivery of excellent merchandise. I shall have to examine the details of the point that he makes and I shall write to him about it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: If my hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he point out that, among other things, only yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a substantial increase in the provision for regional development grants? That is a direct consequence of manufacturing investment being much higher than was forecast. Does that not demonstrate how misleading is much of the nonsense talked about deindustrialisation?

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. Investment decisions are essentially for industry itself. The

real rate of return of 7 per cent. on manufacturing investment last year was the highest since 1973. The growth in manufacturing output has resumed and next year it is forecast to increase by 4 per cent.

Mr. Janner: When the Minister discusses matters with the TUC, will he inquire why an area such as Leicester, where industrial relations have always been very good, is still in the throes of industrial misery in manufacturing, especially in the traditional industries? Why does the Secretary of State say that it is not the Government's business to promote British industry when the revival of industry lies in the hands of the Government, who must decide how, when and where they will put money into it? Unfortunately, they are not doing that now.

Mr. Shaw: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's anxiety about the traditional industries in Leicester, in which hosiery and clothing have played a large part. In the first six months of 1986, the export performance of the hosiery and knitwear industry has shown a significant growth over the same period last year. The hon. and learned Gentleman will also recognise the Government's achievement in renegotiating, largely through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, a multi-fibre arrangement for a further five years. Those are the strategic changes necessary to help the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents to resume their industrial growth.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend note that he could reasonably advise the TUC to ensure that the trustees of the pension fund of the trade union movement play their part in investing properly in British manufacturing and commercial interests?

Mr. Shaw: I should very much welcome further investment by the TUC in British industry, but I also welcome some of the decisions that it took at its recent conference. My hon. Friend will no doubt share with me the joy that the secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, Mr. Ray Buckton, has now been replaced on the executive by the secretary of the Musicians Union.

Mr. Williams: During the recent insider debate the Under-Secretary of State said that it was unfair to judge the failure of the Government's manufacturing investment programme by the 6 per cent. fall in the last quarter. A few moments later he also said that it was unfair to judge the Government's policy and failures by the fact that, in the long term, manufacturing investment remains 17 per cent. below the level that the Government inherited. Therefore, may I ask the Minister, in the spirit of good will that exists immediately before Christmas, to take his pick? Would he like to quote to the House any 12-month period since 1979 in which manufacturing investment has been even within 15 per cent. of the level which the Government inherited?

Mr. Shaw: I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman's yuletide thoughts, but I think he will recognise that all investment moves in cycles. The pattern of industrial investment is cyclical. All I would say is that the present climate, created largely by the Government's policies, has meant that industrial investment is now flowing into more fertile areas with a profitable and reasonable rate of return on it.

Supplementary Benefit (Mortgage Interest)

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the arrangements for the payment of mortgage interest through the supplementary benefit system. As the House will know, 18 months ago, in the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security", the Government declared their intention to examine arrangements for reducing supplementary benefit help with mortgage interest. This was confirmed last December in the White Paper. We said then that we would discuss with building societies and others how we might take this forward.
In May, following those discussions, we referred proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for consultation. The main change was designed to limit the amount of benefit payable during the first six months only of a claim to supplementary benefit.
We have now considered the report of the SSAC and other comments and laid draft regulations before the House today that embody the Government's decisions. The committee's report has also been laid, together with the Government's response to it.
The Government have decided to proceed with the principle of limiting supplementary benefit assistance to mortgage interest but to make two significant modifications to our consultative proposals. First, the period in which only half the mortgage interest payable will count in assessing entitlement to supplementary benefit will be reduced from the six months originally proposed to four months. The regulations actually refer to 16 weeks. Thereafter, the full amount of mortgage interest due will again become eligible for payment. Secondly, we have accepted entirely the SSAC's recommendation that action should be taken to avoid creating a "mortgage interest trap" and the draft regulations have been amended to achieve this. That will help some people to qualify for supplementary benefit payments after 16 weeks who might otherwise not have been able to qualify at all.
The draft regulations also include changes to tighten up the payment of benefit in cases where a home is also used for business purposes, where the mortgage includes a business loan, or where a home is unreasonably expensive. The SSAC has supported all those proposals and we are carrying them through. Our intention is to bring the changes into operation on 26 January 1987.
There will be an opportunity to debate the regulations shortly, but there are several matters that I wish to draw to the attention of the House concerning the main change. First, it will affect only new cases. Secondly, the changes will mainly affect short-term claimants. Fifty per cent. of unemployed people leave the register within three months. Thirdly, the draft regulations reflect several important safeguards and improvements. No one over 60 will be affected; those whose claims are longer lasting will get full help after 16 weeks and extra help with interest on any arrears arising from this restriction. There is also a linking rule between claims to protect people who go on and off benefit and a special disregard of income from mortgage protection policies. Fourthly, the reduction in expenditure will be about £23 million compared with £30 million under

the original proposals. Finally, we shall be encouraging and helping claimants to make early contact with their lenders to avoid difficulties. I should like to stress to the House that the SSAC has acknowledged in its report that the changes should not bring significant financial hardship to the majority of claimants affected. It was, of course, commenting in the context of the six months' restriction and not the lesser 16 weeks now proposed. Moreover, the Building Societies Association has indicated that it will respond to changes sympathetically and responsibly. These are welcome and important assurances. I hope, therefore, that, with the safeguards and concessions I have described, the House will recognise that the Government have struck a fair and reasonable balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Minister aware that this punitive and shameful proposal, despite its minor and entirely unpersuasive limitation to four months, will still push 90,000 families deep into debt, leading to eviction and, no doubt, often to marital breakdown? Is he further aware that the Government's brutal message this Christmas to the unemployed is that they will be deliberately kicked when they are down, losing not only their jobs but, most likely, their homes?
Is it not symbolic of this Government's double standards that they are offering £35 a week to the Prime Minister to buy her half-million-pound mansion in Dulwich, while at the same time they are threatening the unemployed, the sick and the disabled on the poverty line with the loss of their homes? Is it not one law for the rich and another law for the poor, with a vengeance, that last year this Government gave £370 million in mortgage interest tax relief to owner-occupiers on incomes of over £30,000 a year and that now they are insisting on going even to the length of causing homelessness in order to claw back just £23 million from those on the poverty line?
Does the Minister comprehend what will happen to families on the dole under this proposal? Is he aware that a family consisting of husband, wife and two children with a £16,000 mortgage will have to find, under the proposal, out of supplementary benefit of £70 a week, an additional £17 a week, which is nearly a quarter of their weekly income? Is he aware tha a couple with a baby and a £30,000 mortgage—like many in the south-east—will have to find under this proposal an additional £32 a week, which is equal to 57 per cent. of their income on supplementary benefit?
Is he also aware that this is bound to lead to a huge increase in mortgage arrears and that repossession of homes by building societies, which has already increased by 700 per cent. under this Government since 1979, is likely, under this proposal, to reach 50,000 a year? Is that not only cruel but a false economy, too, when the costs of mortgage repossession often fall on the public purse, because families are then allocated local authority accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977?
Is the net saving, therefore, not likely to be even more piffling than the Government's estimated £23 million?
The Government justify their action on two main grounds: first, that mortgage interest payments to those on the dole are the most generous in the world. How does that square with the Minister's answer to me when he said:
We have no detailed comprehensive information about the assistance with mortgage interest payments given to persons receiving social assistance in all European


Community and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries".—[Official Report, 26 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 293.]
Secondly, the Government justify their proposal by saying that the unemployed are in a relatively favourable position compared with low-paid families in work. But why then do the Government not concentrate more aid on the low paid in work with mortgages—for example, the £320 million that could be transferred in mortgage interest tax relief, if that were limited to the basic rate of income tax?
Is the Minister further aware that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is his own advisory committee, has stated:
We do not think a scheme of this kind could be justified at all unless the building societies and other mortgage-giving bodies were prepared to give comprehensive assurances about the availability of rescheduling".
Will the Minister say whether he has had such comprehensive assurances? Will he confirm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Will the Minister confirm that the Building Societies Association has not had any consultation with the Government on the proposals since it gave its views to the SSAC this summer, when it was strongly opposed? Is the Minister aware that nobody in the field supports the proposal—not the building societies, the finance houses, the local authorities, the National Consumer Council, or the independent Institute of Housing, or indeed even Conservatives on the Benches behind the hon. Gentleman, who have the wit to see that the proposal cuts clean across the right to buy?

Mr. John Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Meacher: Does this not finally show—

Mr. Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Meacher: Does this not finally show that the Government's rhetoric about a home-owning democracy is a disreputable sham when it applies only to those in work? This proposal—

Mr. Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Meacher: This proposal will leave thousands of families in the new year without jobs, without homes and without hope, and it should be withdrawn immediately.

Mr. Major: I had thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was seeking to talk the measure out, but alas he cannot do that. I must say to him, in all charity, that I find his guise as the homeowners' friend difficult to take in view of his record and the attitude of the Labour party on mortgage interest relief which he has again attacked in the past few minutes. That was rather curious.
Let me respond as follows to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made. He said that there was no consultation after the matter was referred to the SSAC. He will be aware that the purpose of referring the matter to the SSAC is so that it may consult and report. For that reason, our consultations were held before reference. I can confirm that we consulted widely before reference.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned 90,000 families. Our estimate is that the average number of families affected would be less than that at any one time, probably—

Mr. Max Madden: How many?

Mr. Major: If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will find out how many. It is probably 75,000.
With regard to eviction and repossessions, I can confirm that the Building Societies Association has assured us that it proposes to act responsibly and sympathetically. I remind Opposition Members that it was not the attitude of the Building Societies Association or other major lenders to foreclose during the 12 months of the miners' strike when interest was not being paid. I see no reason to suppose that they will not act equally responsibly on this occasion.
On losses, we expect that those who are unable to meet the second half of mortgage interest payments will have it aggregated to the capital debt, and that sum will be wholly eligible for mortgage interest relief at the end of the four-month period. The hon. Gentleman, in making his wild assertions, overlooked the fact that 50 per cent. of the mortgage interest will continue to be paid on an aggregating capital asset from the first day that supplementary benefit is admissible, and that after 16 weeks, 100 per cent. of the mortgage interest will be payable.
The hon. Gentleman sarcastically referred to the observation that our supplementary benefit scheme for assistance with mortgage interest was the most generous in the world, and asked me for my source. It was not a Government source, but the Building Societies Association, that made that observation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the relationship with mortgage interest relief. I am surprised that he does not appreciate the difference between the two propositions. However, I note yet again that his party has shown its antagonism to home ownership and mortgage interest relief.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a very long day ahead of us. This statement is important, but there is to be a debate afterwards. If hon. Members put their questions briefly, it may lead to briefer answers.

Mr. Richard Alexander: But are not my hon. Friend and the Government being just a little mean over this proposal? At a time when we are spending untold millions whenever the EEC asks for money and some £2,000 million on an airborne early warning system that the RAF does not really want, need we really be doing this to those whose cup of misfortune is already very full?

Mr. Major: I do not accept that it is unreasonable to expect those who are acquiring a capital asset to meet a proportion of the interest charges for a limited period. That is what we propose.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Although the Minister has shown some comprehension of the anxiety expressed by the SSAC and his partial climbdown this afternoon is welcome, will he clarify the fifth paragraph of his statement and what he defines as a home that is "unreasonably expensive"? Does he accept that the statement and the principle that it embodies stand in stark contrast to his Government's trumpeting about wanting to create a property-owning democracy? We now see that property-owning democracy for what it is—under the Tories, people can have the right to buy, but that does not mean the right to keep.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that more people own homes under this Government than ever conceived of it some years ago, and that that is a


continuing trend. He asked about the "unreasonably expensive" proposition, but he will be aware of the provisions that have long existed in the supplementary benefit scheme in that regard. The new proposition is supported by the SSAC and seeks primarily and almost wholly to bring supplementary benefit into line with housing benefit provision.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the Opposition's synthetic rage and push-button ranting and the gentle concerns expressed by some of my colleagues, 50 per cent. of the mortgage is to be paid immediately from supplementary benefit and, after only 16 weeks, 100 per cent. is to be paid? Does my hon. Friend realise that there are people outside the House and perhaps even some hon. Members who recognise that he has a duty to balance the needs of individual responsibility, the social security system and the taxpayer? I believe that my hon. Friend has succeeded in doing that this afternoon.

Mr. Major: I think that my hon. Friend has spoken for many people. We seek to strike a fair balance between the borrower, the lender and the taxpayer, and that underpinned my statement.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Minister give an undertaking that no family will be made homeless as a result of this move? Will he also respond to Mr. Speaker's request that we should speed up proceedings by giving a yes or no answer?

Mr. Major: No Minister in any Government, at any time, would be so unwise as to give such an assurance.

Mr. Field: Then the answer is no.

Mr. Major: I reiterate that, throughout the miners' strike, the major lenders of mortgages did not foreclose and they will act in a similarly responsible way should the occasion now arise.

Mr. Roger Sims: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the SSAC is a completely independent body, which has not in the past been averse to criticising Government measures when it felt so inclined? Will he also confirm that in this case the committee said that the six-month period would not cause hardship, so it is unlikely that the four-month period will? That puts into context the gross and extravagantly long over-reaction of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is right on both points. I confirm the independence of the SSAC, just as its own reports regularly do. My hon. Friend has correctly quoted its view about a six-month restriction, and we have lessened the period substantially.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Does not the Minister agree that, during the lifetime of this Government, the number of households in serious arrears with building society mortgages—that is, more than six months in arrears—has grown from about 8,000 to more than 66,000 currently? Does he also agree that the number of people homeless as a result of mortgage arrears has risen to the point where 10 per cent. of all homeless households accepted by local authorities are homeless because of mortgage arrears and that this measure will make life worse for those people in difficulties? If the Government

had wanted to make savings they might have done so by restricting mortage tax relief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] listen—to those who are receiving that relief at rates above the standard rate, as is proposed by the Labour party. A saving of £320 million could be achieved by that means without penalising anyone on incomes below £20,000 a year. That would have been a way of making savings without penalising the poorest and without the risk of increasing homelessness.

Mr. Major: I am grateful yet again to the hon. Gentleman for emphasising the innate hostility of the Labour party to mortgage interest relief. The fact is that this is a limited measure for a limited time, with a limited impact. The underlying proposition that the hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind is that less than one quarter of 1 per cent. of families out of 6·75 million mortgages are subject to repossession at any one time.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend accept that the flexibility that he has shown in the face of criticisms that were widely felt at the original proposal is welcome? Can he say a little more about the linking proposal that he mentioned in his original statement? What safeguards will exist to protect the position of somebody who takes short-term work to ensure that there is not a major disincentive if somebody working for three months then loses his entitlement to supplementary benefit when he goes back on benefit?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. We are instituting an eight-week linking rule for those who go on and off benefit for precisely the underlying reason mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. James Lamond: Did the information that was circulated by the Tory party when it was trying to lull people into buying their own homes make any mention of the intention of the Government to renege on their responsibilities and to make those who bought their own homes, instead of drawing the unemployment benefit to which they were entitled and for which they had paid, go cap in hand to the building societies hoping that they would pick up the responsibilities that rightly belong to the Government?

Mr. Major: It is a curious expression to refer to people being "lulled" into doing what they most wish to do. I observe once again the curious diversity of views on home ownership on the Labour Benches. On the Government's commitment, I remind the hon. Gentleman that 50 per cent. of mortgage interest will be payable from the first day that people go on to supplementary benefit and 100 per cent. will be paid from 16 weeks. That is a fair balance between borrower, lender and taxpayer, and we will stick to it.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Is the Minister aware that, while we accept the substantial modifications that he has announced this afternoon, some hon. Members remain concerned that the effect of these measures will land entirely on those who are buying their property and that those who are renting will be left entirely unaffected? At a time when many of the properties concerned will be council properties, which the Government have successfully urged people to purchase, is my hon. Friend quite certain that the announcement he has made this afternoon sits happily with our movement towards a property-owning democracy?

Mr. Major: I understand my hon. Friend's reservations. However, he must bear in mind that those who are buying property are aggregating a capital gain; that is a clear distinction between purchase and renting.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister realise that for people in constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is over 20 per cent. and where people have been on low incomes, there is no capital gain at this time, but that in fact, there has been a drop in house values? One building society in the town of Caernarfon has 50 borrowers who cannot afford to repay their mortgages but cannot sell the house in order to buy off the mortgage. In those circumstances, does the Government's proposal today not make the situtation that much worse for people who really are facing up to great personal and family difficulties at an extremely difficult time?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman raises a particular set of circumstances which currently exist in a limited number of areas. We have materially modified the original proposals and done all that we can through the Building Societies Association and others to ensure that repossessions and evictions do not take place. We think that we have struck a fair balance, and we believe that that will be shown to be so in due course.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that his statement today will be especially welcomed as fair by people with low incomes from work who live next door to someone going through a short period of unemployment and regard it as grossly unfair that the latter should receive much greater help from the state?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We had that argument of equity in mind when we framed the proposals.

Mr. John Fraser: Yes or no—do the building societies support the proposal?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman may ask questions in the way that he wishes, but I shall answer them in the way that I wish. If he wants to know the views of the Building Societies Association, I suggest that he asks it.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that when he launched his first initiative I visited a jobcentre to discuss the proposal with professionals who counsel people immediately out of work and looking for jobs and I was surprised to find that they regarded the principle as right? Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I repeat what I said a moment ago. I believe that many people outside the House will regard this principle as right.

Mr. David Winnick: Why should people who are largely the victims of the Government's economic policies be punished in this way? Is the Minister aware that in the west midlands large-scale redundancies continue and many families who become unemployed will be hard hit and penalised by what might be described as this Tory new year present for the jobless? Was the Secretary of State too ashamed to make the statement himself? Why did he send—[HON. MEMBERS: "The

monkey."] Why did he send his messenger boy? Why does not the Secretary of State have the courage to make this statement which penalises and punishes the unemployed?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's charm is legendary in the House.

Mr. Winnick: Answer the question.

Mr. Major: He has about as much charm as a puff adder, as he has shown yet again today.

Mr. Winnick: Where is Fowler?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's question was based on a false premise and the remainder was unworthy of an answer.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the welcome changes that he has made, the regulations will be bound to increase anxiety among those out of work when they are at their most vulnerable, when they first become unemployed? Does he agree that the Government having rightly and successfully encouraged home ownership, must accept as a consequence of that policy the increase in benefit expenditure on mortgage interest payments?

Mr. Major: It is because of representations of the kind that my hon. Friend has just made, which he has also made previously, that we have made the substantial changes announced today.

Mr. Peter Pike: What is the Government's main objective in this proposal? Is it fairness, as they claim, or is it to save money regardless of the people to whom it brings poverty? If the aim is fairness, why do the Government not limit mortgage interest relief to the standard rate of tax and thus save a far greater sum than that announced today?

Mr. Major: Three substantial propositions underline what I have said today. First, we wish to strike a fair and reasonable balance between borrower, lender and taxpayer. Secondly, we do not think it unreasonable to expect people acquiring a capital asset to meet a proportion of the interest charges for a limited period. Thirdly, we are keen to establish equity between those in and out of work on similar incomes—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) continues to babble like a monkey on a stick, I should prefer him to get to his feet and ask a question.

Mr. Robin Squire: I apologise for missing the beginning of my hon. Friend's statement, which I shall read with interest. I unreservedly welcome the reduction from six weeks to four weeks, but as a humane man my hon. Friend will surely appreciate that the loss of this assistance coincides with one of the most difficult periods that anyone could face. Will the Government continue to review whether the proposal is fully in line with the policy of extending home ownership?

Mr. Major: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that we will keep this regulation, as all others, under constant review.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that many of today's unemployed are very apprehensive about taking on a part-time or short-time job with the prospect that it might lead to full-time employment? The eight-week linking rule could well discourage people from having a go at this type of job.

Mr. Major: The purpose of the eight-week linking rule is to meet precisely the concern that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. The hon. Gentleman will know, having been here for the whole of the statement, that, after 16 weeks, the full amount of mortgage interest would again be admissible for benefit.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being prepared to be flexible and to adjust his proposals in the light of advice from an independent body. Will he agree that, these days, there are more and more people who are unemployed for a short period of time for the purpose of changing their jobs or looking for alternative employment in another part of the country? Does the proposal take cognisance of that fact?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. About 50 per cent. of those who are unemployed are unemployed for less than three months.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I confess that I am surprised that the Government think they will save £23 million as a result of this change. Does that gross figure include the amount of administrative changes that the Department of Health and Social Security will have to go through? Does it involve the amount of extra work that the building societies must put in train? Does the gross figure account for the fact that a lot of the arrears will be rolled over and subsequently covered in benefit at later stages?
Has the Minister given thought to the fact that there are areas—Aberdeen immediately springs to mind—where people have bought houses at the peak of a price rise but now find that property values have slumped. Often, there is no council housing available. These proposals will have a bad effect in some areas.

Mr. Major: This is the best estimate that we can presently make. It may be changed subsequently, but it is the best estimate that we have at the moment. The hon. Gentleman's latter remarks echo what has been said previously and I have nothing to add.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call those hon. Gentlemen who have been rising regularly but I ask them to put their questions briefly.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Naturally I welcome the change which has resulted in the period being only 16 weeks. However, I put it to my hon. Friend that it is the anxiety of unemployment that is most important. This proposed change is putting the sword of Damocles over the family home, yet in every other way we are doing everything possible to help to encourage a return to employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real cost to the nation would be greater than any savings to the social security budget?

Mr. Major: I cannot agree with my Friend. I reiterate what I said earlier about foreclosures and the attitude of the building societies and other associations.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Since we have encouraged more than 1 million people to go out and buy their homes, can I sincerely ask my hon. Friend to reconsider these proposals? None of the people who lose their jobs lose them through any fault of their own. We have been encouraging many people to buy their homes. Would my hon. Friend please put out a leaflet urging

potential home-owners to get a mortgage investment plan so that they will not suffer? We wish to encourage people to go out and buy their homes, but they may feel slightly let down today.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is a source of constant surprise to the House, and no doubt he has been so again this afternoon. The decisions I have announced this afternoon are the result of reconsideration made after referring this matter to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we shall reconsider these proposals again.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I thank my hon. Friend for responding to the concerns that many of us put to him and reducing the period to 16 weeks. I have dealt with many mortgage repossession cases. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is absolutely inconceivable that a building society would attempt to foreclose on a house because 50 per cent. of interest arrears over 16 weeks were outstanding. That is the reality of the situation, not the sanctimonious claptrap that we have heard from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge on these matters and I am happy to accept his advice.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will my hon. Friend withdraw his previous insult to puff adders? Does he agree with me that the primary responsibility of homeowners, who stand to gain a lot from capital appreciation, is to insure themselves against contingencies, including that of unemployment? Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment protection policies are available from insurance companies? Has he any comment to make in that regard, in the light of today's statement?

Mr. Major: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I am aware of the mortgage protection policies. Our proposals include a proposition that we would disregard mortgage protection policy income when calculating supplementary benefit in such cases.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people who leave employment receive severance pay to tide them over until they can find other alternative employment? Does he agree that the humbug we have heard from the Opposition Benches is insulting to the independent Social Security Advisory Committee and to building societies? If my experience as a constituency Member is typical, building societies show sympathy and understanding to people who become unemployed.

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend has put his points with total clarity, and I agree with him.

Mr. John Watts: Will my hon. Friend say a little more about the discussions with the building societies and other principal lenders, in particular whether the assurance that they will behave responsibly implies that they will not foreclose during the first four months of unemployment? Is my hon. Friend also aware that any doubts I have about the wisdom of the proposals were substantially reduced by the immoderate and Kinnockesque intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. Major: Rather than making bland statements, I would prefer to refer yet again to the practical experience


that this House and others have witnessed. Recently, during the miners' strike, a 12-month period when mortgage interest was not paid, the building societies, the banks and local authorities did not foreclose.

State Security

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The latest evidence heard in the New South Wales court revealing inconsistencies in the earlier evidence given on behalf of the Government.
I must persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that it is definite—although I have not been in any direct contact with Mr. Malcolm Turnbull. Nevertheless, from the tapes, the BBC 7 am, 8 am and 9 am news and the press, it is quite clear that Sir Robert Armstrong, in an earlier intervention, was given information very different from that which he now reveals about "Their Trade is Treachery" being known to the Government on 15 November 1980.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you like us to be precise in applying for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20, so I shall refer to column 965 of the Official Report on 3 December. During our debate on security matters, I set out the whole timetable, which showed that, six weeks before publication, because of what the Government had acquired from the premises of Sidgwick and Jackson, they knew exactly what was said in "Their Trade is Treachery".
I outlined how, three days before the event, there was a request from No. 10 Downing street for a copy of the book. I mentioned that Mr. Chapman Pincher had said, "I can't give you a copy because if I do you will slap an injunction on me," and how the Government replied, "Of course we will give you a written undertaking in two hours that we will not apply for an injunction." Mr. Pincher said, "How can you do that?" The Government replied, "Oh, we have already read the book." Those circumstances bring me to my next point. The matter is important because state burglary authorised either by Ministers or by senior civil servants—unless we are to believe that MI5 or MI6 was operating on its own behalf—is a deeply serious matter. For the sake of time, I refer to the substantial question I put in column 1092 of the Official Report on 4 December.

Mr. Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Dalyell: The matter is urgent because, although the gremlins who arrange the printed questions have, fortunately, given me question No. 1 to the Prime Minister on 13 January 1987, which asks her if she will place in the Library all correspondence conducted on her behalf between Sir Robert Armstrong and Mr. Chapman Pincher, it may well be that, for the health of the state, we should know before then exactly what really happened. This matter is urgent and important because we have here another example of the Prime Minister instructing her Cabinet Secretary, to put it at its kindest, to be economical with the truth.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The latest evidence heard in the New South Wales court revealing inconsistencies in the earlier evidence given on behalf of the Government.


I have listened with care to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised meets all the criteria necessary for an application under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am not challenging your ruling at all, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to refer to the facts that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has outlined.
Can you, Mr. Speaker, advise us what method is now available to the House to ensure that Sir Robert Armstrong's evidence concerning Westland is not as flawed, ill-informed, economical with the truth and plain forgetful as evidence given under oath in an Australian court?

Mr. Speaker: It is not the role or function of the Chair to give advice on matters of this kind.

BILLS PRESENTED

FREE TELEVISION LICENCES FOR PENSIONERS

Mr. David Winnick, supported by Mr. Allen McKay, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Roland Boyes presented a Bill to make the issue of a television licence free of charge to pensioners living in households consisting only of pensioners or only of pensioners and minors and to persons in accommodation for residential care and to provide compensation for the British Broadcasting Corporation for the loss of revenue: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

AGRICULTURAL TRAINING BOARD

Mr. Gerrard Neale, supported by Sir Peter Mills, Mr. Colin Shepherd, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. David Maclean, Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Alexander Pollock, Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. John Home Robertson presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the function of the Agricultural Training Board: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 16.]

CROSSBOWS

Mr. Peter Bruinvels, supported by Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Sir John Biggs-Davison, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Michael Hancock, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Albert McQuarrie and Mr. Michael Shersby presented a Bill to create offences relating to the sale of crossbows to, and the purchase and possession of crossbows by, persons under the age of seventeen; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

CROWN PROCEEDINGS (ARMED FORCES)

Mr. Churchill, supported by Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. Jack Ashley, Sir Bernard Braine, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, Mr. John Cartwright, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. John Hannam, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Alfred Morris and Sir Ian Percival presented a Bill to repeal section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and to make provision for the revival of that section in certain circumstances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

HUMAN RIGHTS

Sir Edward Gardner, supported by Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Dr. John Gilbert, Mr. Norman St. John Stevas, Mr. Terence Higgins, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Dr. M. S. Miller and Sir Antony Buck presented a Bill to provide protection in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the United Kingdom is a party: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

ACCESS TO PERSONAL FILES

Mr. Archy Kirkwood, supported by Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Jeff Rooker, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Dafydd Wigley presented a Bill to provide access for individuals to information relating to themselves maintained by certain authorities, institutions and persons; to allow individuals to obtain copies of, and require amendment of, such information; to provide for compensation in certain circumstances; and to provide for the enforcement of these provisions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 February and to be printed. [Bill 20.]

AIDS (CONTROL) ETC.

Mr. Gavin Strang, supported by Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. Allan Stewart presented a Bill to make provision in relation to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

LICENSING (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Allan Stewart, supported by Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Ted Garrett, Mr. Robert Atkins, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Rob Hayward, Mr. Robert Jackson, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Keith Raffan and Mrs. Ann Winterton presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 so as to enable different permitted hours to be specified for individual on-licensed premises and registered clubs: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

HOUSING (HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION)

Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of Mr. Donald Anderson, supported by Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. David Knox, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Keith Best, Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and Mr. Ron Leighton presented a Bill to update, strengthen and simplify the law and procedures relating to houses and buildings occupied by persons who do not form a single household; to define categories of such houses and provide standards to apply to them; to clarify the duty of owners of such houses to maintain those standards; to confer duties on local housing authorities to enforce the standards and assist improvements by grants; to extend and simplify local housing authorities' powers to make control orders and compulsory purchase orders on the grounds of harassment; to increase occupiers' rights to initiate improvements and to be rehoused in certain circumstances; to repeal existing provisions relating to such houses; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

HEDGEROW PROTECTION

Mr. Robert B. Jones, supported by Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Richard Page, Sir Hugh Rossi, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Chris Smith presented a Bill to extend certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 to apply to hedgerows: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Gerald Howarth, supported by Mr. William Cash, Mr. Michael Forsyth, Mr. Neil Hamilton, Mr. Michael Hancock, Mr. Walter Harrison, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Peter Lilley, Sir Peter Mills, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock and Mr. William Powell presented a Bill to extend the scope of operation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and section 25 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

EDUCATION (NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Ron Davies, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Terry Lewis presented a Bill to amend the Education Act 1980 to make provision with respect to nutritional requirements for school meals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 February and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)

Mr. Terry Lewis, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Jim Callaghan, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Richard Caborn, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. Gerald Bermingham presented a Bill to give the public greater

access to meetings of, and information held by, community health councils, and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

UNBORN CHILDREN (PROTECTION)

Mr. Alistair Burt, supported by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Dame Jill Knight, Sir Bernard Braine, Sir Peter Mills, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Ian Campbell, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mr. James Pawsey, Mrs. Ann Winterton and Mr. James White presented a Bill to amend the law relating to human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation: and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY (INFORMATION)

Mr. John Fraser, supported by Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Allan Roberts, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Stuart Holland, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Clive Soley and Mr. Steve Norris presented a Bill to empower the Police Complaints Authority to publish information and reports in the public interest, subject to certain conditions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

SOUTH WEST (ENGLAND) DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton, supported by Mr. Michael Foot, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Tony Speller, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Tom Cox presented a Bill to establish a South West of England Development Agency; to provide for the appointment by the Secretary of State of a South West Industrial Development Advisory Board; to make provision for assistance in connection with air services serving the Region; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February and to be printed. [Bill 30]

MOTOR CYCLE NOISE

Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Peter Snape, Mr. Terence Higgins, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Gordon Bagier, Mr. Robert Hicks, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Hugh Dykes and Mr. Conal Gregory presented a Bill to prohibit the supply of motor cycle exhaust systems and silencers likely to result in the emission of excessive noise; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

REGISTER OF SASINES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Michael Martin, supported by Mr. Jim Craigen, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Gordon Wilson, Sir Russell Johnston, Mr. Alexander Eadie, Mr. Tarn Dalyell, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. James White, Mr. Martin J. O'Neill and Mr. Allen Adams presented a Bill to make provision as to the methods of keeping the Register of Sasines: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to printed. [Bill 32.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1982 (AMENDMENT)

Sir Edward Gardner, on behalf of Mr. Mark Carlisle, supported by Sir Ian Percival, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. John Wheeler and Mr. Jerry Hayes presented a Bill to give powers to the courts on passing a sentence of youth custody to suspend the sentence either in whole or in part: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

SCHOOL GOVERNORS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION)

Mr. Allan Roberts supported by Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Robert Litherland presented a Bill to amend the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 so as to require school governors' meetings to be open to the press and public; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

Orders of the Day — Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill

Considered in Committee.

[MR. HAROLD WALKER in the Chair.]

Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I do not know whether you are aware that the list of amendments was not published until 11.30 this morning. No blame is attached to the Officers of the House—the real reason is that the Government are rushing the Bill through. This Committee stage comes only two days after Second Reading and hon. Members will have had little time to consult people outside or to prepare for today. Does not railroading such as this make parliamentary scrutiny almost impossible?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been confronted with the same difficulties. I understand that the exceptionally large number of amendments posed problems for the printers, which delayed the selection of amendments and the posting of the selection. I do not think that there is anything that we can do about it now.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Walker. It is not just the quantity of amendments which has caused the problem—

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: It is the quality.

Mr. Fatchett: The quality is excellent, and I hope that some Conservative Members come to debate them later.
The real problem is the fact that we are being rushed into this crucial legislation. We had the Bill's Second Reading only on Monday night and, within 48 hours, the Government expect us to go through the Bill line by line. How is it possible for hon. Members to brief themselves and to talk to their constituents and other interested parties in time for today's debate? If the House's purpose is to scrutinise legislation in detail and to watch what the Executive is doing, we must have the necessary tools and resources.
The Government's timetable has ensured that Back Benchers who want to play their role will not be allowed to do so. It is no use Conservative Members, who are only Lobby fodder, saying that they have had time to study the Bill and the amendments—we have not. I ask you, Mr. Walker, in your capacity as one who wants to preserve the procedures of the House, seriously to consider delaying our proceedings today so that we have an opportunity to spend more time on these crucial amendments.
If the Bill goes through unamended, many people will lose fundamental democratic rights. If Parliament does not have an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill properly, it will be held in very little respect. I ask you, seriously, to adjourn the sitting so that we have more opportunity to examine the amendments.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House (Mr. John Biffen): I shall intervene—I hope, to facilitate progress. I regret that, owing to extreme pressure of work at St. Stephen's Press last night, it did not prove possible for the marshalled amendment paper for the committee stage of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill to be completed


within its normal time schedule. I understand that the process was completed at 11 o'clock this morning, and that copies were available in the Vote Office at about 11.30 am. therefore, I confirm the point made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). I regret the inconvenience caused to Members, but I suggest that it would be best if we proceeded.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Cannot the real strength of feeling by Labour Back-Bench Members be gauged by the small number of them that have bothered to turn up?

Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. The procedure being used today is not dissimilar from that being used after a terrorist bombing, or when a war is imminent or we are sending troops to Northern Ireland. This Bill is being rushed through with unseemly and indecent haste because of the Conservative party's desperation to get it on the statute book. This is contrary to what normally occurs in peacetime. I hope that everybody will take notice of the way in which the Bill is being pushed through. I understand that it will go to the Queen on 19 December. They have got all this organised, but it does not give us enough time to look at our briefs. It is cheating, to say the least.

The Chairman: I do not know about any arrangements with the Queen. The business for today has been agreed by the House through a motion that was tabled formally. I hope that the Committee, having listened to the explanation given by the Leader of the House, will be prepared to get down to the business before it.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. There is a serious point, of which the Committee should take note. It concerns the speed of proceedings and the shortness of time available for consultation with outside interests that are directly involved in this legislation. The legislation has major consequences for local education authorities and teachers' organisations. When one considers the date on which the Bill was published, the time available for discussion before Second Reading was short enough. If the Committee is to act as it should, as a representative assembly, it is important for hon. Members, whatever their view, to have the opportunity to consult those whose interests and freedoms are directly affected by the proposals, and specifically the amendments and the new clauses.
In view of that, Mr. Walker, I ask that consideration be given to the possibility of delaying a Bill which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) pointed out, is not an emergency measure like the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act. Every hon. Member understands the need for emergency provisions, but this is not an emergency facing the House or the country. Would it not make more sense for the Committee to consider the whole matter at much greater leisure so that we can get the matter correctly settled and make the right decisions? I would be sorry, as I am sure you would be, Mr. Walker, if the Committee made the wrong decisions as a result of indecent and unnecessary haste.

The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I have to point out two things. First, it was a decision of the House that enabled amendments to be

tabled in sufficient time for today's proceedings. Secondly, this is a matter not for the Committee but for the House, and that matter was decided last week. It is not for the Committee to decide. It was decided for us by the House. Perhaps now we can get on.

Mr. Barnett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Would it be possible for us, in the light of the case that I and my hon. Friends have been making, to move to report progress?

The Chairman: I do not think that it would be wise for me to consider a motion to that effect at this time. Perhaps the sensible thing would be to move on with the business before us.

Clause 1

TERMINATION OF EXISTING ARRANGEMENTS

Mr. Radice: I beg to move, amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert
'After the making of an Order under subsection (1A) below'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) of this section will come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after such period of consultation as appears to him to be reasonable following publication of proposals in the form of a White Paper as to arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'.
No. 9, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall be made until after the coming into effect of an agreement with respect to the remuneration of school teachers (and such other matters as the parties to that agreement may determine) agreed between organisations representing school teachers and their employers.'.
No. 10, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after the publication of a report by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service as to arrangements for the remuneration of teachers.'.
No. 11, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by a Parliamentary tribunal of inquiry appointed to examine and report on arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'.
No. 12, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect before the conclusion of consultation with associations of local education authorities, such organisations representing school teachers as appear to him to be concerned, and any local education authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, and the laying before Parliament of a report of the results of such consultation.'.
No. 13, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
'(1 A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by an independent inquiry into arrangements for determining the future remuneration of teachers whose members shall be appointed in equal proportions by the Secretary of State, organisations representing school teachers and associations of local education authorities.'.
No. 14, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—


(1B) No Order shall be made under subsection (1 A) above unless a draft of the Order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'
No. 17, in page 1, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert
', together with conditions of employment, by measures which encourage and promote the full development and realisation of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between local education authorities and teachers' unions and associations, or by such other methods as will allow representatives of such unions, associations and local authorities to participate in the determination of these matters.'.
No. 18, in page 1, line 10, at end insert
'provided that no such provision shall have the effect of altering the terms of any agreement as to remuneration or other matters between employers and organisations representing teachers agreed before the passage of this Act.'.
No. 19, in page 1, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
'in the cases of school teachers and teachers in further education, by provisions agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'.
No. 20, in page 1, line 11, leave out 'having effect under this Act' and insert
'agreed between or settled in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers'.
No. 22, in page 1, line 12, at end insert
'and agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers.'.
New clause 7—Remuneration and conditions of employment—
'Subject to the further provisions of this Act the remuneration and conditions of employment of teachers shall be in accordance with provisions agreed between or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'.
New Clause 8—National collective agreements—
'(1) There shall be reported to the Secretary of State any national collective agreement made between teachers and their employers as to remuneration and/or conditions of employment.
(2) Upon receipt of such a report as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section the Secretary of State shall unless in his view national economic circumstances otherwise require make provision by order made by statutory instrument giving effect to the provisions of such a report as regards remuneration.
(3) In the event that the Secretary of State decides by reason of national economic circumstances to make no such order as is mentioned in subsection (2) of this section he shall call for a further report of the Advisory Committee on the matters contained in a report made under subsetion (1) of this section.
(4) Where such further report is required to be submitted by the Advisory Committee the Committee shall consult:—

(a) with such associations of local education authorities as appear to them to be concerned, and
(b) with such organisations representing schoolteachers as appear to them to be concerned
and shall thereafter prepare and submit to the Secretary of State the further report requested by him specifying the provisions as to remuneration and conditions of employment recommended by them.
(5) Upon receipt of such further report of the Advisory Committee the Secretary of State shall subject to the provisions of section 4 of this Act, make provision by order made by statutory instrument giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee as to remuneration and shall notify the appropriate body or bodies constituted for the negotiation of national collective agreements between teachers and their employers of his acceptance of the recommendations of the Committee as regards conditions of employment.
(6) Upon receipt of notification from the Secretary of State of his approval of the recommendations as regards conditions of employment, the appropriate body constituted for the negotiation of national collective agreements between

teachers and their employers shall adopt such recommendations which shall then formally have effect as terms of the contracts of employment of teachers to whom the recommendations apply.'.

Mr. Radice: The purpose of this group of amendments is to introduce a period and process of consultation before the Remuneration of Teachers Act is repealed, and to insert into the Bill the collective bargaining that the Bill seeks to abolish. No education Bill in recent times has been introduced in such a peremptory and authoritarian way. There has been no process of consultation with teachers, local authorities and parents about this Bill. In addition, the Secretary of State is trying to railroad this legislation through Parliament. There has been no manifesto commitment, no Green paper or White paper.

Mr. Batiste: While the hon. Gentleman is on this important point about consultation and the speed with which the Bill has come forward, will he confirm reports that I have received? They say that he was in consultation with the union leaders and some Labour council representatives during the negotiations leading up to the joint councils-unions proposals, and that the objective of those consultations was to come up with a package that would be acceptable to the Opposition but not to the Government? Was the Leader of the Opposition involved in those discussions? Will the hon. Gentleman make available in the Library details of what transpired in those discussions?

Mr. Radice: Throughout this whole sorry dispute, lasting for two years, I and my hon. Friends have been trying to achieve peace. I wish that the same could be said for the Conservative party.
The Committee stage is being taken only two days after Second Reading. The time allocated for it is only one parliamentary day. Normally, we take 20 or 30 hours in Committee and controversial Bills take even longer. We are told that the Bill will be introduced in the other place next week. Such haste and lack of consultation might have been justified in time of war or to stop terrorism, but it cannot be justified in the case of this highly controversial Bill. I remind hon. Members that it abolishes collective bargaining until 1990 and puts in its place a system of naked ministerial diktat.
The Secretary of State has continually sought to disguise what the Bill does. On 27 November, in reply to my question whether the Bill would enable him to impose a settlement, the Secretary of State told the House that it would give him powers similar to those that he already has, but he knew, as he said it, that his reply was misleading. Under the Remuneration of Teachers Act, which clause 1 is abolishing, the Secretary of State does not have the power to impose a settlement. He has the power only to set aside an arbitration award, and then only after an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. If there is agreement in the Burnham committee, the Secretary of State has to accept that. As I said on Second Reading, that is one of the reasons why the Bill is being rushed through in such haste. Even under section 89 of the 1944 Act, the Secretary of State could only accept or reject the Burnham recommendations. The Secretary of State was misleading the House on 27 November and he knew he was. He should at least have the grace to apologise for that.
Similarly, in his Second Reading speech, the Secretary of State showed a lack of candour. The Secretary of State


did not explain what was in the Bill. He left it to the Minister of State to tell the House—as far as she was able—what the Bill contained.
Although hon. Members were barracking my speech on Second Reading, there was a sudden period of surprised silence when I explained what the Bill really contained. Obviously, they had not read the Bill, and it would appear that the Secretary of State had not read it either. I want to let Conservative Members into a secret, as I suspect that they still have not read the Bill even though it contains only seven clauses. It proposes that the Secretary of State shall impose his solution without negotiation and irrespective of the suggestions from the advisory committee.
4.30 pm
The Bill abolishes negotiating rights and gives the Secretary of State sweeping ministerial powers over a long period of time. He cannot simply claim that the proposals are meant to cover just one year. They are not; they are intended for three years. Indeed, if we count the retrospective powers, they cover four years. The Secretary of State should have the common honesty and decency to admit that. Frankly, I would respect him more if he did. He should take a leaf out of the previous Secretary of State's book. Whatever criticisms I made of him, I never accused him of lacking candour. If he had produced such a Bill, he would have had the decency and honesty to tell the House exactly what it contained.
The Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading and the way in which he treated the House was disgraceful. I advise him to stop smiling and start telling the truth, which is that the Bill abolishes collective bargaining. Ministers have made a case for reforming the Burnham committee, and I broadly accept it. The Opposition agree that there is a need to discuss pay and conditions together. Indeed, we may have said that before the Government said it. We also believe that the Government have to be properly represented at the bargaining table.
As many hon. Members stated on Second Reading, we strongly believe that as the Government pay 46 per cent. of the total salaries bill, they should be represented at the negotiating table. There is no question about that. However, they have entirely failed to make a case for abolishing collective bargaining. That is what the Bill proposes and that is the issue that the Government must address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made an excellent speech on Second Reading. He said that in a pluralist society, people should have the right to belong to a union and the right to bargain collectively with their employers. Does the Secretary of State agree with that statement? Does he agree that teachers, organised in unions, should have the right to bargain with their employers? What is his answer? Perhaps I should give him a moment to seek advice, although it should not take much advice to answer that question.
As Ministers will be aware, once the Bill comes into force, 400,000 teachers will have fewer bargaining rights than any other group of public servants. I remind the House that civil servants at least have the Whitley council machinery, yet the teachers will have no bargaining machinery whatsoever. Nurses, doctors and the Armed Forces have independent review bodies that publish reports on pay. The teachers will not even have that. We

want the Government to accept an amendment about publishing regular reports. At least that would be something.
No one can pretend that the advisory committee is anything other than the Secretary of State's poodle. Certainly, it is not an independent review body in the normal definition of such a body.
Teachers' organisations, including the National Union of Teachers and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, that have already taken up the case with the relevant authorities, are correct to say that the Secretary of State's Bill contravenes articles 7 and 8 of the International Labour Organisation convention 151 regarding the rights of public employees, which has been ratified by this Government. It also contravenes article 4 of ILO convention 98 and article 6 of the European social charter. Are the Government really claiming that they mistrust teachers so much that they are to be uniquely deprived of bargaining rights, even if to do that contravenes international and European convention and law?

Mr. David Young: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the intention of the Bill is to bring peace to the teaching profession, the imposition of pay settlements is a prescription for disaster?

Mr. Radice: I believe that the Secretary of State has embarked on an extremely dangerous course and a dangerous gamble. To impose a settlement either now or in the future is a dangerous game to play. I warn him that he may not realise the consequences of his action. I very much hope that there will be peace in the classroom. After what has happened during the past two years, no one wants further disruption. However, the Secretary of State's action is very ill-advised and dangerous.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the amount of disruption over the past two years. Faced with that disruption, the continuing disarray of the trade unions and the lack of agreement between the unions, and acknowledging that my right hon. Friend has a clear responsibility to the nation's children, what else can we expect him to do? Clearly he cannot allow matters to drag on indefinitely. He has a great responsibility and he is entirely right to discharge it.

Mr. Radice: We shall deal with that issue in the next group of amendments. However, I repeat the point that I made on Second Reading—that I do not believe that there is a great deal between the Government's position announced on 30 October and the ACAS agreement. The difference between the two sides is marginal. If the Secretary of State is really interested in an agreement, he can achieve one. Is he really interested in an agreement? I sometimes doubt it.
Has the Secretary of State taken legal advice on whether his Bill contravenes the various conventions to which I have referred? I hope that he will answer that later. If the Government can take this action against the teachers, there is nothing to stop them from bringing in further Bills to clobber other groups of public employees—for example, health employees and local authority workers. It would be easy for the Government to remove all bargaining rights from workers in local government and the nationalised industries. Nothing that this Government might do would surprise me.
I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the proposals for a reformed bargaining machinery that have already been agreed between the employers and the teachers, and which meet the criteria for which the Government have been asking—that pay and conditions should be discussed together and that the Government should be strongly represented at the negotiating table. I cannot understand why the Government do not eagerly accept and support that agreement. That would be the sensible thing to do.
We certainly support the ACAS agreement and believe that it should be implemented. Of course, reform on those lines is one thing—we warmly support it—but the abolition of collective bargaining, which is contained in the Bill, is another. The Government accept that bargaining on those lines works well for teachers in further education—indeed, the Secretary of State said that on Second Reading. He has not abolished collective bargaining in further education. If the machinery that links pay and conditions works well for teachers in further education, why should it not work well for teachers in schools? Again, the Secretary of State has not answered that question.
The Bill takes away bargaining rights not from the teachers, but from local authorities. What is the justification for that? They, not the Government, employ the teachers. Ratepayers, not the Government, pay the majority of the bill for teachers' salaries. Yet, under this proposed legislation, both ratepayers and local government will be disfranchised. Yes, they will be consulted—but the Secretary of State or the advisory body, if they so wish, will be entitled to ignore what they say. They have the whip hand.

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend has raised an exceedingly important point. Conceivably, there could be an extravagant Government with an extravagant Secretary of State who wanted to give in to teachers and pay them enormous salaries. That would place a burden on local authorities that ratepayers could not be expected to bear. The argument cuts both ways. The Secretary of State now tells us that it is his business to decide how much teachers will get—perhaps too little, perhaps too much. Therefore, the employers—the people who pay the bulk of the salaries—are completely in his hands. He can consult them, but he does not have to pay any attention to what they say. Therefore, a serious matter could arise for local education authorities if this sort of legislation were to be passed.

Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend raises a good point. What underlines what my hon. Friend says is that we need a balance, on the management side, between local authorities representing ratepayers and the Government representing taxpayers. We need to have teachers on the other side. That is the sensible way to go about it. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State seems to believe that he alone, and not local authorities, has the unique insight and wisdom to determine teachers' pay. When the hon. Lady—is she a right hon. Lady yet?

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): No.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Lady soon will be, I am sure. When she was a local authority representative, she had

quite a few points to put forward and thought that people should take notice of what she said. Indeed, sometimes she said some sensible things.
I should have thought that the Secretary of State would respect the good sense of local authorities. He should have written into the Bill a way of ensuring that they had real determination and influence on what happens. I do not mean the lip service that he pays in the Bill to consultation, but the giving of proper bargaining rights to local authorities. There is a strong case for that.
There was no mention in the opening speech—of course there was not much in it—or in the speech that the hon. Lady made in which she tried to justify the Bill, of how Ministers justify taking rights from local authorities, who are the employers of the teachers. With the Bill, we shall reach an extraordinary situation in which the Secretary of State can, unilaterally, impose not only pay rates but contracts of employment, even when the Government or the Secretary of State are not the employer. Again, the Secretary of State says that he alone has the wisdom, the intelligence and the wit to know what should be in a contract of employment and that the employers do not have anything much to contribute. That is absurd.
If we examine the Bill, the realities of collective bargaining, the realities of the teachers' employment situation, the need to have local authorities properly represented and the need to ensure that teachers are able to bargain collectively about pay and, of course, conditions, we must come down in favour of collective bargaining.
4.45 pm
Irrespective of the present position and the inadequacies of Burnham, which are freely admitted by all hon. Members, it is wrong in principle and a breathtaking leap in logic for the Secretary of State to argue a case for getting rid of collective bargaining. That is a totally authoritarian solution to a problem that can be solved in other ways. The way forward has already been suggested—it is by and through the ACAS agreement. We argue for the purpose of these amendments, which is to restore collective bargaining to the Bill and to try to make some sense of a Bill that would otherwise be totally disastrous.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I was surprised by the speech made by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). For the past two years he has worked hand in glove with the Labour party in a way that has been unhelpful to schools.

Mr. Barnett: He is a member of the Labour party.

Mr. Greenway: Yes.
The general secretary of the NUT has gone around the country often saying disruptive things. At a meeting in Ealing, for example, he said that he was delighted that there were strikes in 14 schools. He thought it was excellent. He was supported at that meeting by the Militant Tendency, the hard-Left Labour councillors, and just one or two so-called parents. That is the sort of disruption that the hon. Gentleman supports. He argues that we shall lose something precious in the form of the bargaining that we have had. In the breath before that, he agreed with Conservative Members that the Burnham committee no longer performed a useful function and should go.

Mr. Radice: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I shall give way later.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a teacher, I lived under the workings of the Burnham committee for 23 years. For most of those years, there was precious little bargaining. The teachers' position was dictated by the National Union of Teachers, which had a majority on the teachers' panel. I have never belonged to the NUT, and never will. The NUT has never fully represented the interests of career teachers. That is its great failing. When the teachers' union to which I and my colleagues belonged put forward our views, they were always overridden by the NUT. It insisted on its views being put forward.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Which union?

Mr. Greenway: I shall not be diverted from the point that I make, even if Opposition Members do not like it. They talk of democracy. For generations, from the teachers' point of view, there has been no democracy under Burnham. We listened to the hon. Member for Durham, North for 20 to 25 minutes. I think that I might be allowed just a few minutes. I did not speak on Second Reading, and it is time that the House heard from a real teacher.
Since the NUT lost its majority on the Burnham committee, there has been fairer representation of the teachers' views because they could no longer be ridden over by the NUT majority. The NUT majority meant that there was no genuine bargaining on the teachers' side formerly.

Mr. Radice: rose—

Mr. Barnett: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I said earlier that I would give way to the hon. Member for Durham, North, much as I respect the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett).

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman got to the point in the end. The NUT has not had a majority since November 1985, so the argument that there is a dominating force overriding all else on the teachers' side can no longer be sustained. My simple question is: does the hon. Gentleman believe in collective bargaining?

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has made my next point for me. The NUT lost its majority in 1985, as I said and as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. It now seeks to dominate the teachers' position by disruptive tactics. Having lost its position democratically, it seeks to impose its view in a dictatorial way.

Mr. Barnett: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Greenway: I know that the hon. Gentlemen are in the pay of the NUT. They will have the opportunity to put their point of view.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should be asked to withdraw a statement to the effect that I or any other hon. Member is in the pay of an organisation in order merely to put that organisation's view in the Chamber. I should have thought that it is

totally out of order for such a statement to be made. I would ask the hon. Gentleman if he would kindly withdraw.

Mr. Pawsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Would it not be helpful if honourable colleagues were to declare their interests and advise the Committee that perhaps they are representing the views of a particular section of the community or of an industry?

Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) included me in his comments about hon. Gentlemen being in the pay of the NUT. I hope that he will withdraw that comment. May I say that I have never received a penny from the National Union of Teachers. I am in no way responsible to that organisation, nor do I speak on its behalf. It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman got his facts right.
As for the comment by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), if we were all to declare our interests, I suspect that there would never be questions or speeches in the House by Conservative Members, because they are paid so much from outside the House of Commons.

Mr. Greenway: I did not notice that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I certainly was not referring to him. The hon. Member for Greenwich knows that I have great respect for him. I think that he would concede that he is a consultant to the NUT. I do not know whether he is paid anything for that or whether money is paid into an association in which he is interested—perhaps his Labour association or some such body. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to clarify the position when he speaks. He certainly has an interest in the NUT.

The Chairman: Order. With respect, that is not sufficient. We are all hon. Members. We all declare our interests in the Register of Members' Interests. Certainly, many hon. Members receive remuneration from interests outside the House, but it would be improper to say that hon. Members were being paid for expressing their views. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said, or meant, that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) was being paid for what he said in the House, he should withdraw.

Mr. Greenway: I think that it is fair for me to say that the hon. Member for Greenwich is paid attention by the NUT. I have never talked of money.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that that is a sufficient response to my request.

Mr. Greenway: May we proceed, Mr. Walker? I have never talked about money. I simply say that the hon. Gentleman is paid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have nothing to withdraw. I have never talked about money, Mr. Walker. I said that the hon. Member for Greenwich is paid attention by the NUT. I leave him when he makes his speech to clarify any other aspect in respect of which he is paid cash. I am not interested in that.

Hon. Members: Name him.

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North is saying that he never expressed in the words


attributed to him the views which are alleged against him, the Committee should accept that. If that is what the hon. Member is saying, we should proceed.

Mr. Greenway: I would not wish to say—

Mr. Allan Rogers: Sneak.

Mr. Greenway: I do not think that it is parliamentary for me to be called a sneak by a hon. Member who does not know what the word means. If I implied in any way that the hon. Member for Greenwich was paid money by the NUT, I withdraw. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is a consultant to the NUT. I am surprised that he protests to such an extent. He has a real interest in advancing the views of the NUT.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I seek your guidance, because this matter came up on Monday. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) regularly speaks, and we all listen to him with great interest, but he has never declared in any speech, so far as I am able to ascertain, that he is the parliamentary consultant to the National Union of Teachers and whether there is financial help to his association, to his office or to him. I do not care what happens.

The Chairman: Order. It is open to any hon. Member or any member of the public to obtain a copy of the Register of Members' Interests. Hon. Members are required to declare their interests in the Register. I assume that if the hon. Member for Greenwich has such an interest, it is recorded in the Register. That matter is rather different from the one to which I was drawing the Committee's attention arising from the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The hon. Member for Ealing, North has generously cleared up that matter, and I think that we should now proceed.

Mr. Greenway: Thank you very much, Mr. Walker.

Mr. Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall in a moment. I have not mentioned the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) records in the Register of Members' Interests that he is a consultant to the National Union of Teachers on a retainer of £1,000 a year.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. Is it in order for hon. Members to read continually from the Register? Under the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) the Register records his employment outside the House as a part-time lecturer and an examiner of the London Regional Examining Board. Does that put the hon. Gentleman—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Rogers: How much does the hon. Gentleman get?

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Rogers: I am sorry, Mr. Walker.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Rogers: It is more than he is worth.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Rhonda (Mr. Rogers) has only confirmed what I have said—that the facts are available in the Register, which is available to every Member and every member of the public. Now perhaps we can return to the debate.

Mr. Greenway: I think that I have made it clear that, until November 1985, the NUT had by its position on Burnham dictated the teachers' bargaining position. There has been no genuine bargaining in the view of the vast majority of teachers. Since then, the NUT has continued to attempt to dictate to teachers by disruptive tactics. That will not do. The hon. Member for Durham, North talked of a loss of the teachers' bargaining position. I regret to say that he was not talking about anything substantial. Teachers may well find that, over the next two or three years, their bargaining position will be enhanced by the Bill.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way.
The teachers' bargaining position will certainly not be helped by the Labour party's amendments, which are complicated and will not make the position as clear as it is now under the Bill.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Barnett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: There have been enough interruptions. I shall not give way any more, not even to the hon. Member for Greenwich. I gave way to him to clarify his point, and we must leave it at that. We accept that there is continual disruption and shouting by the Opposition. It is well known that, if hon. Members have nothing to say, they shout.
The present position under the Bill is analogous with the 1960s; it was a little different, but not all that different. There was discussion with the teaching profession, as there is now, on the need for higher pay. Some of us took part in a campaign calling for "More shekels, less Eccles". Sir David Eccles was then the Minister for Education. The hon. Member for Hillsborough was in the profession at the time. He would remember the "More shekels, less Eccles" campaign.

Mr. Flannery: indicated dissent.

5 pm

Mr. Greenway: He cannot have much of a memory, then. Sir David Eccles picked up that campaign and forced the teaching profession into a debate similar to the one into which it is being forced now. The debate then, as now, was about paying teachers to persuade them to take the extra responsibility of headship, deputy headship, head of department, apparently small posts such as looking after stock in a school and the many posts in between. Sir David Eccles forced a debate on those issues and the profession could not make up its mind how it wanted to be paid.
Today we are in a similar position. The basic question facing the profession, which the Bill and the amendments force us to consider once more, is how the profession shall be paid to secure a viable structure in schools which will enable them to run. This amendment will not help that position.
In my last school there were 152 teachers. It was necessary to pay about 100 of them special allowances ranging between the salary paid to the deputy head at the top and to those on a scale 2 post, with varying positions of responsibility in between. Some of those allowances had to be used to persuade teachers to teach subjects where posts could not be filled by teachers being paid the basic scale. The amendments will not change that position or


improve it. The Bill is neutral on that. It is up to the profession to continue to work towards obtaining the right structure by arguing for it.
My final analogy with 1963 is that then, as now, the profession was totally divided. Today, five unions are opposed in one way or another to the ACAS deal. The position is confused and in urgent need of a resolution by one means or another. The amendments will not assist the position and I oppose them.

Mr. Barnett: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Normally, as I understand it, it is the practice in Committee to give way relatively freely. I shall certainly give way to Conservative Members, or indeed to Labour Members, if they wish to intervene, according to the more informal procedure in Committee.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Ealing, North and anyone else who is in any doubt, I shall explain the relationship which I and one or two of my hon. Friends enjoy with the NUT. I joined that union 33 years ago when I first became a teacher. Indeed, I joined it before I became a teacher, when I was still in training. I joined it knowing that my first job was in a grammar school, where the normal practice in those days was to be a member of the Assistant Masters Association. I believed strongly in a united profession, and the NUT is the union which accepts people regardless of their position in the teaching world—whether they are primary school teachers, secondary teachers or head teachers, and whether they teach in grammar schools—as they were in the old days—or in secondary modern schools. That seemed to be the best way of achieving what I believe, and hope, is the objective of all hon. Members who take an interest in education—a united profession.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North is a member of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers.

Mr. Greenway: No.

Mr. Barnett: Oh, he is not even a member of that union. I do not know which union he is a member of. Whatever it is, it is not the NUT. He made that clear.

Mr. Rogers: If my hon. Friend looked at "Dod" he would discover that the hon. Member for Ealing, North is a founder and chairman of the London Schools Horse Society and the British Horse Society's award of merit. Those are his great achievements.

Mr. Barnett: I got the impression that the hon. Member for Ealing, North was a member of a trade union. Clearly it is not the NAS/UWT. Whichever union it is, I understand and perhaps sympathise a little with it because of the way in which its views were overridden by the majority on the Burnham committee. I sympathise with it because, sitting in opposition, my views are often overridden by the larger number of Conservative Members. It is only occasionally, on such matters as the Shops Bill, where there is serious division among Conservative Members, that the views of Labour Members—which are sometimes correct, as the views of Conservative Members are sometimes incorrect—are listened to. That is a good example of the way in which we are constantly overridden.
The union to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North belongs may have been overridden in the past by the NUT,

but the effect of this legislation is that any union will be overridden by the Secretary of State. No union, however big or small, can, under this legislation, do more than be consulted.

Mr. Radice: Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will be the union and the management side.

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend has led me straight on to the essential point behind the amendments. As he said, a consequence of the Bill is the extraordinary position of the Secretary of State making decisions on behalf of employers and employees. A Minister or a Secretary of State making decisions on what shall be paid and what differentials shall exist, which must then be followed willy-nilly by employers and employees, is almost unprecedented.
At the beginning of the Bill—this may be remarked upon, so we had better dispose of it immediately—in the explanatory memorandum, the section entitled "Financial effects of the Bill" states:
The expenditure of local authorities on teachers' pay will continue to be taken into account for the purpose of rate support grant.
That is nice to know, but the point that I made when I intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is that the local authority and the ratepayer in that area will have to pay rates not according to decisions made democratically by the local authority or local authority associations, or through the fair process of negotiation, but by the diktat of the Secretary of State.
The effect of the Bill will be far more sinister than that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said, on pay and conditions the Secretary of State is appointing himself as the employer and as the employee representative—the trade union—in place of those who hitherto had those responsibilities. This is the first step in the process of setting up a national teacher service. A vital part of the employers' function will be removed from them.
On Second Reading we noticed the extent to which the Government's approach was centralised. I am convinced that this is the first step on a slippery slope towards national pay and conditions. The next step will be a national curriculum. Local education authorities will be abolished and decisions about what is taught, and how it is taught, will be made centrally by the Secretary of State, with the assistance of the Department of Education and Science and such consultative or advisory committees as it may please him to set up and whose advice it may please him to follow.
The Secretary of State has taken that devastating step, completely out of line with the tradition of British education this century. The Education Act 1944 described our education service as a national service locally administered. There was a partnership between the Secretary of State, the Department of Education and Science and the local education authorities, in which teachers, through their representative organisations, played an important part. Those were the three parts of our education service in which decisions could be made. Indeed, in individual schools, head teachers could operate within considerable margins when deciding on the education that they could provide.

Mr. David Madel: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a partnership stretching back to 1944. Is it not a fundamental truth that that partnership


has broken down and that the education service has been all over the place since this disruption? No Secretary of State could sit idly by and allow the matter to drag on.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is right to regret the disruption in our schools and to say that during the past few years the partnership has broken down. I blame that breakdown on the previous Secretary of State. Alas, this Secretary of State is only following the tradition set by his predecessor. When he took office, with his honeyed words about the way in which he would operate the education service, a few of us were deceived about his intentions, but the Bill demonstrates what his intentions were from the start. He intends to operate the education service in a dictatorial and authoritarian fashion, and that is why the partnership has broken down.
When I was a junior Minister, although not in the Department of Education and Science, I remember how the Department operated in partnership with the Confederation of Local Education Authorities and how it consulted the teachers regularly. It operated by consultation and consent.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman's description of the breakdown of the partnership is inaccurate. It broke down because two of the parties—the school teachers representatives and the local authorities — attempted to impose on the Government what they regarded as a settlement. They tried to exclude the Government from the partnership.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. That is a new argument. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Secretary of State does not employ the teachers. The employer in this case is the local education authority.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) suggested that the Government were being excluded. Does my hon. Friend agree that clause after clause was inserted in the ACAS agreement because of pressure by the Government? There is considerable evidence in that agreement of the way in which the local authorities and the teacher unions have met the desires of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Guy Barnett: That is true, and it is not the end of the matter. There is no doubt that the employers and employees were ready and willing to negotiate with the Secretary of State to try to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to all sides. Indeed, although the settlement that was agreed at Coventry and Nottingham would have meant more expenditure and a series of pay scales that may not have suited the Secretary of State's priorities perfectly, there is no doubt that it was all open to negotiation. The Secretary of State has shut the door on the possibility of negotiation between the various parts of the education service.
The Secretary of State has insulted the local education authorities and teacher organisations. It is not surprising that a representative lobby, fully supported by the NUT, is attending the House this afternoon. The teachers have been devalued by the Secretary of State's behaviour.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to skate over

the point, but he talks about the employers as though they were a unanimous group. He will know that the employers—the local authorities—were not in agreement. Labour authorities may have been in agreement, but I believe I am right in saying that some of those so-called employers walked out. May I repeat a point that was made on Second Reading? Outside this place, most people understand an employer as being the person who pays. Until the Opposition recognise that, we will get nowhere.

Mr. Flannery: The Government pay only 46 per cent.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Yes; 46 per cent. means paying.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is saying that no local authority is an employer. Every local authority depends on rate support grant, so ultimately the Government are the employer. That is the only interpretation that I can put on his argument.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The House heard me more clearly than did the hon. Gentleman. I said no such thing.

Mr. Barnett: I can only interpret what the hon. Gentleman said in that sense because, as he knows, the local education authority writes the cheques, pays teachers' salaries and pays the other expenses of running an education service. Of course it receives funds from central Government to assist it in doing that, but there is no doubt in my mind that the employer is the local education authority. The relationship is being interfered with seriously as a result of the Bill.
I am no supporter—indeed, we would not find a single supporter in the House—of the continuation of the Burnham committee. The amendments are an attempt to discover ways in which an agreement can be reached to reflect the shape of our education service, which is different from the service in France or in other countries which have a national system of education.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman should note that amendment No. 13 says that an order should be made following
a report by an independent inquiry".
The independent inquiry proposed by Labour Members is to consist of members
appointed in equal proportions by the Secretary of State, organisations representing school teachers and associations of local education authorities.
The hon. Gentleman has completely failed to observe that the Bill provides an opportunity for genuine independent assessment, whereas that is avoided under the amendment and we shall be back to square one in no time at all.

Mr. Barnett: That is all very interesting, but we are not discussing that amendment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amendments that were called by you, Mr. Walker, he will discover that the amendment to which he referred is not on the list. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to refer to amendment No. 13.

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) is alleging that I am not speaking to the amendment in question. I should be grateful if you would enlighten us on that.

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs me to tell him whether he is speaking to the amendment. When he is out of order, I shall tell him.

Mr. Barnett: I do not pretend to put forward the best arrangements for negotiations to take place. That is a


difficult issue that would have to be decided as a consequence of consultations between the Secretary of State and representatives of the local education authorities and the teachers' organisations. The House cannot make such decisions.
It would be exceedingly difficult to ensure that all parties had an opportunity to see that their special interests were properly represented in whatever negotiating machinery was finally set up. However, that is the way that it should be done. If it is not done in that way, and if we follow the purposes of the Bill, which provide the Secretary of State with authoritarian powers, we shall destroy the arrangement and philosophy of the British education system and establish a national education system.
That may be desirable, and it may be what Conservative Members want but it is not what I want. I have always thought that one of the great strengths of our education system is that it allows room for differences to suit regional requirements and reflects democratically expressed opinions, through the local authorities. That room for difference also has the marvellous effect of making experimentation possible in our education system — for example, the comprehensive experiment and others—

Mr. Pawsey: The city technology colleges?

Mr. Barnett: They have hardly resulted from experimentation at a local level. The hon. Gentleman quotes something that has been imposed by central Government. That is hardly in line with the sort of experimentation and educational advance that has been made by people such as the late Sir Alec Clegg and others, who have pioneered new developments in education at local level, which later have had an impact on the education system as a whole. I value localism in education and am against national authoritarianism, and that is why I shall vote in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I followed the speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) with some interest. He declared that our education system was distinctive, and so it is. It is distinctively barmy, because any situation in which the person who provides the money is not involved in the hiring and firing of any of the staff, and in which the person who hires and fires staff is not responsible for their day-to-day deployment, and in which the day-to-day deployment of the staff is put into the hands of somebody who neither provides the money nor hires and fires the staff, is a certain recipe for disaster. The extraordinary thing about the British education system is the way in which, over a long period, good will has enabled an unworkable system to tick along. The Secretary of State's proposals are an inevitable consequence of the breakdown of a system that was inherently unstable from the beginning.
However, the hon. Gentleman also said that he foresaw a dramatic centralisation of the British education system. I hope that he is wrong, and I think that he is wrong for two reasons. First, I have reservations about exposing any Secretary of State—even one with the broad shoulders of my right hon. Friend, or any less robust successor—to a constant round of direct negotiations on the details of pay, year in, year out. I hope that his proposals will be the first step to a radical change in the system of teachers' remuneration, because that is long overdue.
Secondly, we need a system under which schools are provided with a budget, out of which the head teachers would make the necessary allocations. That would allow them to chose whether they will have more staff and less equipment or more equipment and fewer staff. It is absurd to operate a system that is full of highly intelligent, dedicated, conscientious people and pretend that they are totally incapable of running more than a nugatory budget.
When teachers complain—as they frequently do—that they are under-remunerated, it might pay them to look at one or two other professions—for example, that of speech therapy. I have some knowledge of that profession, because my wife teaches within it. A district speech therapist with a salary of about £10,000 per year—[Interruption.] It is interesting that Opposition Members—from sedentary positions—pay no attention when one attempts to widen the debate in any way, shape or form.

Mr. Flannery: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel very strongly about the under-payment of speech therapists. We have tabled a motion to try to increase their wages, after many years of struggling to help them. Will the hon. Gentleman tell his wife that?

Mr. Rowe: My wife follows those matters with considerable interest. My point is not so much that speech therapists are under-remunerated, as that a district speech therapist who, like a teacher, is a graduate, will be responsible for a budget of somewhere between £250,000 and £500,000, on a salary of about £10,000 per year. The idea that the professional confreres of speech therapists, professions such as teaching, are incapable of handling money is an insult to the teaching profession. However, that is an inevitable consequence of the extraordinarily ramshackle system of dividing financial responsibility from personnel responsibility, or from day-to-day administration.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I do not know what experience that hon. Gentleman has of teaching and of teachers. Does he agree that a teacher in the classroom wants not money in the hand but adequate resources, adequate time and adequate colleagues with which to do a collective job? Financial administration is best dealt with by other people. Indeed, in some large secondary schools the capitation sums, the accounting and the calculation of how much money can be put into staffing, or how much into the equipment, is left in the capable hands of bursars who are accountable to headmasters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the right division of labour for a professional teacher?

Mr. Rowe: The divorce of the allocation of resources, however small, which relates to the way in which one does one's job, from the doing of that job, is one of the reasons why so many professions are in some trouble these days. I could not agree more that there is a real need in schools for someone with the duties of a bursar to look after such things as the capital stock, repair and maintenance and the collection of moneys. But the administration of a department, the deployment of teachers within that department and the trade-off between hours in the classroom or the laboratory and doing other things, should be on the basis of having a budget to administer. It is demeaning to the teaching profession that most teachers are regarded by whomever is supposed to employ


them as being incompetent and not to be trusted with money. The time is long overdue for schools to be run by people who control and understand the resources. That might even breed a clearer understanding of where the resources come from in the first place.

I hope that the change in the nature of the negotiations is the first step towards a decentralisation of the education system and a combining of the personnel and financial administration functions. My goodness me, there is a need for a change in the nature of negotiations which, hitherto, have provided a form of contract which means that, the moment everybody stops doing what they regard as voluntary, the system falls to bits. Anything more absurd than that would be hard to find. For that reason, I shall support the Government.

Mr. Fatchett: The amendments centre on the right to free collective bargaining for teachers. It was interesting that in two interventions during the debate Conservative Members were either invited to say, or, during the course of their contributions, failed to say, whether they agreed with free collective bargaining for teachers.
The first occasion was when my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) asked the Secretary of State whether he agreed with free collective bargaining for teachers. It may be uncharacteristic of the Secretary of State, but he remained silent. There are not many days or occasions since he took over that office that he has remained silent, but on this occasion that was a pregnant and meaningful silence. We now know from his refusal to intervene that he does not agree with free collective bargaining for teachers.
Another contribution was made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), and, even by his standards, I think that it is one that he may well regret. During the course of that speech, he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) to say whether he agreed with free collective bargaining for teachers. The hon. Gentleman tried to obfuscate the issue. That is not difficult for him because he does that regularly on any issue, but on this occasion he did so as a tactic. It was obvious from that tactic that the hon. Gentleman did not want to say in the House and on the record that he also disagreed with free collective bargaining for teachers.
The indictment against Conservative Members is strong. We have the silence of the Secretary of State and the silence of the hon. Member for Ealing, North, a combination that means they they are likely to be taken at their word; such weight and intellectual ability combined to give the impression and to lead to the conclusion that the Government are opposed to free collective bargaining.
We need not take the argument much further, but the argument was made in other terms on Monday evening by the Minister of State. On Second Reading, the hon. Lady accused me of saying that the Government are trying to remove the negotiating rights of teachers. She almost gave the impression, despite all that we have heard, that that was a scurrilous and unfounded accusation on my part. But the hon. Lady went to to say:
The Government have not denied that the teachers' unions have a role in pay determination. I assure the House that there will be no shortage of consultation."—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol.107, c. 111.]

Mrs.Rumbold: indicated assent.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady nods in agreement and I am happy that she does so. She is making my case and that of my hon. Friends, the teachers' unions and the teachers. The hon. Lady is saying that she does not believe in collective bargaining for teachers.
Bargaining is a process which involves the two parties giving and taking and coming to a joint arrangement. That is the nature of bargaining. The hon. Lady offers consultation, but she knows, as we all do from the Government's record, that consultation simply means listening, not acting on, agreeing with or moving towards the views that come from the other party. What the hon. Lady said will be recorded and emphasised time and again because she has stated clearly what her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North failed to state—she is against bargaining for teachers.

Mr. Steve Norris: I believe in the right of free collective bargaining, but I fail to see how the frequent references to consultation and the provision for consultation, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, combined with the right of the teachers' organisations to take whatever industrial action they deem fit, as that is clearly not proscribed by the Bill, does not constitute just as free collective bargaining arrangements as are available in any other section of industry. It is a travesty to suggest that it is not perfectly retained here, but with the difference that it is now clear to whom the teachers should be directing their efforts, and that is to my right hon. Friend. That clarification is in the interests of both sides.

Mr. Fatchett: I am disappointed with that intervention. I acquired a warm respect for the hon. Gentleman during the debates on the Education (No. 2) Bill earlier this year. He had a great deal to contribute to the education debate. [Interruption.] However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) says from a sedentary position, that intervention was not up to the hon. Gentleman's usual standard.
Let me explain why. The hon. Gentleman is trying to equate bargaining and consultation. Let me give him an example to think about from his own constituency. For example, if, in Oxford, Leyland decided that all decisions about pay would be made by the managing director or the chairman of the company, the unions could come along, or perhaps come along—it is not clear from the Bill whether they would, on analogous terms, have that right—and make their presentation. They would be "consulted", to use the Minister of State's term, in that way. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a fundamentally different process from that which currently takes place in British Leyland on the determination of pay? Let me describe the process, so that he can be clear before he answers.
What takes place currently on pay determination is that the two sides, management and the trade unions, sit and negotiate across the table until they come to a joint agreement. The nature of bargaining is a joint agreement; the nature of consultation is unilateral decision-making. If the hon. Gentleman wants to return to Oxford and argue with his constituents and their trade union representatives


that consultation is the same as collective bargaining, he may be in for a shock and a rude awakening. However, I shall listen with interest to what he has to say.

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that in any bargaining arrangement that the two sides make, the terms upon which they are prepared to settle are quite clear. Movement towards an eventually agreed settlement takes account of a number of factors, not least the right of employees, subject to the arrangements that are provided for under the trade union Acts, to ballot their members and to withdraw their labour, if they regard the settlement as unsatisfactory. Were the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to include a waiver of the right to withdraw labour, I should have more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, but clearly they do not. It is a matter of sophistry to decide whether there is a meaningful distinction between negotiation and consultation. Teachers will be just as able in the future as they are at present to make the full weight of their argument felt in negotiations and consultations with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Fatchett: I do not want to labour the point for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, but as we have a great deal of time it may be worth one more try. There is a fundamental difference between what the hon. Gentleman regards as consultation and the process of negotiation. However, he was almost there; there was a moment when I thought that there was a joining of hands across the Chamber, and we await the intellectual awakening of Conservative Members. At that moment the hon. Gentleman said that one party starts in one position, that the other party starts in another position and that then, through the process of applied pressure, which may be the threat of industrial action or the threat of dismissal by the employer, there is movement on both sides. That is implicit in bargaining but it is not implicit in consultation. It is intrinsic to the nature of bargaining but it is not intrinsic to the nature of negotiation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes my point fully and that he will join us in the Lobby when we vote on the amendment.

Mr. Cash: In the context of amendments Nos. 8, 12 and new clause 8, will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Opposition place such emphasis upon consultation? New clause 8 provides for national collective agreements, and it is implicit in the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking that there will be consultation. However, he seems to be suggesting that consultation is not very useful. Will he please explain how he comes to that conclusion?

Mr. Fatchett: I am trying to differentiate between the collective bargaining process and the consultation process in industrial negotiations. If the hon. Gentleman had recognised that fact, he would also have recognised that his intervention was otiose. He may be able to make his point later. We shall look forward to it, and from his track record there is no reason to suspect that he will not make it. I was simply trying to distinguish between collective bargaining and consultation.

Mr. Radice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. It is obvious that he has something to say on this point.
The conclusion that can be drawn from the comments on Monday night of the Minister of State, which were clear and distinct, is that she does not believe in free collective bargaining. She believes that teachers deserve only to be consulted.

Mr. Radice: My hon. Friend has made the distinction between consultation and collective bargaining absolutely clear to me. He may not have made it clear to Conservative Members, but it is possible that they do not want to listen. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has read the amendments. Had he read them, he would have seen that their purpose is to provide for a consultation process before the repeal of the Act. The hon. Gentleman is confusing two processes. He would have been well advised to read the amendments before intervening.

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope, therefore, that we have shown the distinction between collective bargaining and consultation.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) because I find that his interventions are always enjoyable.

Mr. Marlow: How would the hon. Gentleman describe the system of wage consultation over nurses' pay? Is that collective bargaining or consultation?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I hope that he does not extrapolate from it that I welcome his point. What happens with nurses, and this is why they are so—

The Chairman: Order. It would be most unwise for the Committee to go into the collective bargaining arrangements for a variety of professions. The Committee ought to stick to the one profession that is the subject of the Bill before the Committee.

Mr. Fatchett: I am always prepared to listen to your guidance, Mr. Walker, because it is obviously based on a great deal of experience. I shall give the answer to the hon. Member for Northampton, North outside the Chamber, not in these proceedings.
We have made a distinction between collective bargaining and consultation. Now I wish to consider some of the reasons that have been given by Conservative Members as to why the Burnham committee should be scrapped. Both sides of the House agree that the Burnham procedures and the Burnham machinery have failed. Therefore, we have to consider what to put in their place. In one of his more imaginative comments, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) asked what else could have been done; he said that it has to be, as it is provided for in the Bill. Simply to shrug his shoulders and ask what else could have been done showed a lack of willingness on his part to put his great intellectual powers to good use.
The speech of the Minister of State on Monday night was full of interesting comments. Those of my hon. Friends who were not in the House on Monday night missed a great treat. Some of the Minister's hon. Friends must have been profoundly disappointed by it, if they were


not there on Monday night. I recommend them to read the report of her speech in Hansard. She said that the Bill is needed because the Burnham machinery and procedures have failed. For that reason, she said that there must be interim arrangements, involving an advisory committee.
I say with the greatest possible respect to the hon. Lady that that is a jump in logic that in itself is illogical. She is suggesting that there is no alternative to the Burnham machinery other than the Bill of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is clearly not the case. The ACAS agreement which is on the table contains provisions relating to a national joint council for negotiations on teachers' pay and conditions. The hon. Lady does not agree with the national joint council approach, an approach which, Mr. Walker, as you know from your past industrial relations experience, is used in very many industries. If the hon. Lady cares to intervene at this stage, perhaps she will tell us why she does not agree with it. She makes the illogical suggestion that there is no alternative to it. I should have thought that she would recognise that there is an alternative, and I shall advance that argument a stage further.
The hon. Lady referred in her speech to our suggestion concerning the European social charter.

Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, no.

Mr. Fatchett: I know that the hon. Gentleman was completely disillusioned by the few years that he spent as a Member of the European Parliament. Perhaps we shall hear about it during the evening.
I refer to the European social charter only because it has been cited in the context of this debate and the Minister of State responded to it. The Minister said that article 6(2) requests Governments to promote voluntary collective bargaining, where necessary and when appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) realised that the Minister had made a crucial point because he tried to intervene to obtain clarification. However, the hon. Lady would not give way. Then she said:
The article clearly recognises that circumstances can occur in which voluntary negotiations are not appropriate."—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 110.]
In other words, the Government see their way out of their obligations under the European social charter by arguing that the voluntary negotiation system is not deemed by the Government to be appropriate.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: No, I shall not give way for the moment; I will in a minute.
If that is not appropriate for teachers—that is what the Government and the hon. Lady are saying—the same argument could be applied not just to teachers but to every group of public sector employee. Our debate tonight on the Bill extends beyond teachers' pay and conditions to each and every public sector employees.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): indicated dissent.

Mr. Fatchett: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. However, the Government's track record does not suggest that there will not be an extension to other public sector employees. We have already seen from the Government the ability to take away fundamental trade

union rights at GCHQ. Now they say to us, "But the teachers are another special case." How many more special cases will there be in the public sector before the country realises that it is an attack upon the fundamental rights of public sector employees?

Mr. Madel: The hon. Gentleman talks about other public sector workers, but in such cases negotiating machinery already exists, negotiations are going on, and there is not the same industrial relations upset in other spheres of the public sector as in the teaching profession. The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that the dispute in the teaching profession goes back many months. Many months ago ACAS offered to intervene, and the unions said, "Not interested."

Mr. Fatchett: I should like to build on the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is saying that the argument for abolishing the machinery, which is similar to the argument used by the Minister of State, is that there have been difficult negotiations with the teachers. Are we to believe—I think we are, from what the hon. Gentleman says—that if those difficult negotiations are reproduced for local authority manual or white collar workers, or for Health Service staff, the same decision will be taken? That is why I said that the warning that comes from the debate and from the Bill is not just for teachers but for each and every public sector employee who is in danger of losing fundamental rights. Once the Government are tempted down that road, they will continue on it, and they will continue to attack trade union rights.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is referring to new clause 8. Subsection (2) states that any national collective agreement must be referred to the Secretary of State by way of a report. This is the crucial bit. The subsection says that upon receipt of such a report, the Secretary of State "shall"—not "may"—
unless in his view national economic circumstances otherwise require make provision by order … giving effect to the provisions of such a report".
New clause 8 shoots the hon. Gentleman's argument straight in the foot. This is what the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) will have to concede, too. Apart from the fact that our clause 3 provides for consultation and Opposition amendments Nos. 8 to 14 do so too, new clause 8 is a spurious and fraudulent attempt to convince people that they are negotiating in an exercise to provide national collective agreements. The let-out is contained in these very provisions. The paragraph contains the words "in his view", so that is not justifiable, and the let-out is:
unless in his view national economic circumstances otherwise require".
Therefore, the new clause is completely worthless. I hope that the unions will take account of that.

Mr. Fatchett: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have read the point that I was about to make. On new clause 8, he should recognise that there would be collective bargaining and one would build upon the partnership in education. I have heard some Conservative Members say that that partnership has broken down. One will not renew it by adopting the Government's policies; one will rebuild it only by the recognition that is implicit and explicit in new clause 8. That is why the new clause refers to collective bargaining for unions and employers, and that is why the new clause also refers to the role of the Secretary of State. I must move forward—

Dr. John Marek: Before my hon. Friend moves forward, I should like to ask him whether he agrees that far too much emphasis has been placed on the agreements breaking down between the teachers and the employers, so something must be done. Nothing has been said about why the agreements have been breaking down, and why there has been so much fuss. Is not part of the reason the continual hammering that the teachers have had from the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The equipment grants have been slashed, and class sizes have been too high. They have been driven into the ground at every possible opportunity. Would not support of the teachers have been a better way to attack the problem in the education system than what the Government propose in this odious Bill?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend has made a perceptive point, given the noises from Conservative Benches. He is absolutely right to say that, since the Government were elected in 1979, they have taken every opportunity to denigrate and devalue the contribution that teachers make to society. The Bill is part of that process. The Government have been determined to attack teachers.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that the teachers' salary bill has increased in real terms since 1979 with the derogatory point that he is trying to make?

Mr. Fatchett: I have no difficulty at all. In the three years or so that I have been a Member of the House of Commons, I have listened to Conservative Members at every education Question Time and in every debate. They have attacked teachers as a collective body or as individuals. If the hon. Gentleman popped into the House more often when it was dealing with education business, he would realise that there is no difficulty in reconciling those two points.

Dr. Marek: Before my hon. Friend does move forward again, if what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) says is true, that is a result of the Clegg award. The Conservative Government were not responsible for that, and they berated us for leaving them such a legacy. We were proud of that legacy. That award is the reason why the teachers got a decent rise. The Labour Government were responsible.

Mr. Fatchett: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to look at the history of the dispute and of pay in the public sector since 1979. As my hon. Friend rightly says, in the early months and years of the Government's period of office, every attempt was made to criticise the Clegg award and the Clegg machinery. My hon. Friend is right that many public sector employees welcomed the machinery and saw the benefit of it.
I shall now move forward in my argument. I almost apologised to you, Mr. Walker, for giving way to one or two hon. Members, but I suspect that some Conservative Members are trying to delay this important debate. I cannot understand the reason for that.
On several occasions, today and on Second Reading, we have heard the argument from Conservative Members that it is the taxpayer who pays the bill for teachers, so the taxpayer has the right to demand the machinery that is set out in the Bill. That is an interesting argument. I should like to quote from a press release issued by the Department

of Education and Science on 28 November this year, which was the day when the Secretary of State published his Bill. He said:
Taxpayers and ratepayers who pay teachers' salaries are entitled to have a system which produces results.
Conservative Members will notice a slight shift in the argument. In today's debate and on Second Reading, we talked about taxpayers, but on 28 November, announcing the publication of the Bill, the Secretary of State also talked about ratepayers. I wonder why reference to ratepayers has been dropped in subsequent arguments, and I think that I know the reason. Perhaps the Secretary of State will not intervene again, so let me explain to the House. The reason is simply this. If one wants to have representatives of the taxpayers, our political system provides representatives of the taxpayers. The taxpayers' representative could be said to be a Minister and the ratepayers' representative could be said to be a local authority councillor. We have a system that is based on that principle, and it is called local government.
Hon. Members may have noticed that this Government do not have any great liking for local government, and perhaps that is one reason why reference to it has been deleted from any subsequent argument. But I suspect that there is another reason, and that is that the Bill does not allow local government to participate or negotiate in any way. The Secretary of State has taken away from the teachers' pay discussions the immediate representatives of their employers—namely, local government. That is typical of the Government's attack on local government. The Bill represents a fundamental attack not only on teachers but on our constitution.
6 pm
The taxpayer argument is dangerous, and Conservative Members should think about it before going ahead with the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, the implication is that such legislation could apply to all other public sector employees. We now know that the Government do not believe in free collective bargaining for teachers. Judging by what the Government have said, they can foresee circumstances in which collective bargaining could be removed from other groups of public sector employees. We also know that the taxpayer argument could be used to take bargaining rights from all public sector workers. You were right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to allow me to talk about nurses' pay, although I am sure that you realise that the Bill has implications that go far beyond the teachers' dispute, and extend deep into the public sector.
I shall conclude—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I always like to play the populist card, and I realised that Conservative Members thought that this was the moment. I suspect that I shall have another opportunity to speak tonight, and it is always a mistake to have too much of a good thing all at the same time. Consequently, I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion. The other night, however, I said that I would oppose the Bill vehemently because it attacks an intrinsic right in any pluralist democracy—the right to belong to a trade union and for it to bargain collectively on behalf of its individual members. If Conservative Members listen to both sides of the argument, they will realise something that they probably know in their hearts, which is that being a trade union member is of little value if one does not have the ability


to make representations and to bargain collectively with one's employer. In a democratic society, that is a fundamental right.
The history of western Europe and even of industrial relations in the United States shows that democratic Governments have tried to further that right to bargain collectively. For example, the Wagner legislation, which dates back to the 1930s, gave trade union organisations the right to develop collective bargaining. It imposed obligations on employers to bargain freely and in good faith with individual trade unions and groups of workers. That legislation was not limited to the United States and has been reproduced in many parts of western Europe.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has stressed the importance of unions having the right to bargain collectively on behalf of individuals. But is not the obverse also true? If a trade union does not have the right to bargain collectively, the inducement or need to join that union is greatly diminished. Consequently, the Bill's effect, and one of its purposes, is deliberately to undermine and destroy the appeal that trade unionism has for teachers. People will thus be driven into making individual bargains, which will obviously prove to be less satisfactory to them and will undermine the coherence and partnership of education as a whole.

Mr. Fatchett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In western Europe and the United States, the trend has been to preserve democracy and to build on trade unionism and collective bargaining. The Government are going in the opposite direction. The debate and these amendments are important. I had hoped that I would win some support from Conservative Members. However, the power of my argument has obviously been enough to win me one supporter at least, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who represents the Liberal party, has at last joined us in the Chamber—[Interruption.] I see that he is just disappearing, but at least one Liberal Member has given the debate a little of his time.
Having listened to our arguments and having understood the rights involved, I hope that at least some Conservative Members will join us in voting for the amendments.

Mr. Batiste: It will be apparent to all those who listened to the 40-minute lecture from the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that he used to be a lecturer on industrial relations. He gave us a detailed but rather academic exposition on the difference between consultation and collective bargaining. In practice, it means relatively little, as much depends on the procedures and on how much they overlap. For the purposes of this debate, the significant and practical point is whether the arrangements that now exist have worked, and they patently have not.
I am as committed an enthusiast for the principle of collective bargaining as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, but although teachers are important, it is the children in our schools who matter most. We have waited too long for a resolution of the dispute. The difference between the Opposition and the Government can be seen in the way in which we approach the present stalemate and seek to break out of it. The Opposition want a long-term

solution. I believe that any long-term solution must involve a more formalised arrangement for collective bargaining. The Government propose a short-term solution to an immediate problem, and on that basis I am very willing to support it.
I am prepared to accept this short-term solution because I have urged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before to go further and faster than he did in the Education (No. 2) Bill and substantially to devolve power to the governing bodies of schools. After the next election, that must be one of our earliest priorities. A long-term solution to the collective bargaining arrangements within the teaching profession must wait for that fundamental reform of the way in which the education budget is administered.
Thus, we must find a short-term solution to this difficult problem. I would not have spoken if the right hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) had responded to my intervention. However, he completely ignored my questions, so I feel bound to repeat them in more detail. I am delighted that he has resumed his seat, as those questions are of fundamental importance. Why have the collective bargaining arrangements broken down, and what was the Opposition's role in their failure? That question must be put firmly on the agenda for this debate.
The right hon. Member for Durham, North is straining at the leash to reply, but I shall give him an opportunity later to put the record straight. Several questions have been put to me. During the course of the negotiations between the unions and the employers there were repeated and obvious moments when Labour party representatives on both sides of the table left the room on the understanding of the others present that they intended to consult the right hon. Gentleman. I put that to the right hon. Gentleman — [Interruption.] I apologise, is he simply an hon. Gentleman? I am sure that that is an ommission that time will remedy. There will, after the next election, be a vacancy for the post of Leader of the Opposition and, by tradition, the Leader of the Opposition is a Member of the Privy Council. I am sure that it is only a matter of time before the hon. Gentleman is a candidate for that post.
My point is that the hon. Member for Durham, North said that over the course of the past two years, he has made repeated interventions with a view to trying to ease a settlement between the two parties. If that is correct, it is fair. However, I have to say to him that many people are rather suspicious of some of his interventions and I want to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity of facing squarely up to the points that have been put to me. I cast no aspersions. I am simply giving him an opportunity to answer the points that have been put to me by many trade unionists who are involved in the education world and who are concerned at the way in which his interventions may have led, for example, to the walk-out of some of the employers' representatives.
There were some helpful points in the package that was put forward. It may be that the hon. Member for Durham,
North—

The Chairman: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman help me by telling me to which amendment he is addressing himself?

Mr. Batiste: I am referring to the entire package of amendments, because they were proposed on the basis that


they were an alternative system for collective bargaining to replace those being put forward by the Government. I am saying that there would be no need for those amendments if the obstacles to collective bargaining that exist were removed.
The hon. Member for Durham, North and others have made repeated references to the attempts of the parties to settle the disputes directly between themselves—employers and unions. I would very much like that to be a solution. I would have that as a preferred solution. However, there appear to be obstacles to that and the amendments that have been proposed will present further obstacles to that process. On that basis I would suggest, Mr. Walker, although I am always bound by your guidance, that what I am saying is directly relevant—as will be the response I hope, from the hon. Member for Durham, North. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has now left his seat as I come to the point I wish to put to him.
In the package that has been brought forward there are, on public record, some points of common accord. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted that many parts of the package are helpful. However, there are two sticking points that relate to the amount of money involved in the package and the question of incentive payments. I want to know, and I think that everybody is entitled to know, what interventions the hon. Member for Durham, North made on those two points. It has been suggested to me that his interventions on those points were designed to produce a package that would be acceptable to the Labour party but unacceptable to the Government and that, in fact, the dispute is being prolonged for electoral purposes by the Labour party. If that is so, it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the country should know about.
It is perhaps a matter of ultimate regret that, although it was obvious what question I was going to put to the hon. Member for Durham, North, he has walked out of the Chamber rather than respond to the points I have made. I have no doubt that if I sit down shortly he will come back in when the opportunity to respond has passed by. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will keep pressing the hon. Gentleman to respond to those points because I intend to make them again and again until we get clear answers as to exactly why he intervened in the negotiations, whether he did so with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition and the extent to which those interventions caused the failure of negotiations on those points and prolonged the dispute.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Batiste: I am mindful of your intervention, Mr. Walker, and I will not take the matter any further. I am sure that, as soon as I resume my seat, the hon. Member for Durham, North will return to the Chamber and pretend that nothing has happened.

Mr. Flannery: I am sure that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was speaking on behalf of his union, Equity. It sounded as if he was standing in the Royal Shakespeare theatre. The departure of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) whatever he has gone out to do, alarmed the hon. Gentleman to the extent that we heard the last great soliloquy of "Othello" during his speech.

Mrs. Elaine Kellet-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I am not giving way. I wish the hon. Lady would sit down and let me get on with my speech.

Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. May we ask the hon. Gentleman to enlighten us as to which amendment he is speaking to?

The Chairman: I think that the hon. Gentleman is making introductory comments.

Mr. Flannery: I have not begun speaking precisely to the amendment yet. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has a reputation in the House for intervening in the middle of the first sentence of any Labour Member.
Before I deal with amendment No 8 and other amendments, I want to say that the hon. Member for Elmet is not unknown to me. He and his wife were both councillors in Sheffield for many years. He has spent his conscious life struggling against free collective bargaining in trade unions.

Mr. Batiste: rose—

Mr. Flannery: Let me say a few more words about the hon. Gentleman before I give way.
The hon. Gentleman is on the record in Sheffield as being totally opposed to trade unions. However, he said tonight that, like Labour Members, he believes in the principle of free collective bargaining. He does not. That is nonsense. He is utterly and totally opposed to free collective bargaining, just as the Secretary of State is. Before I go any further, let me warm the cockles of the hearts of Conservative members by saying that there are no Members of the Liberal party or the Social Democratic party in the Chamber.

Mr. Batiste: rose—

Mr. Flannery: There are some Labour Members present. We do not have as many Members as the Conservative party—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I am sure that the hon. Lady would like to stop me in mid-sentence again, but I will not let her.
It is appalling to see the Conservative party, with sickening unanimity, agreeing to the total violation of democracy contained in the Bill.

Mr. Batiste: rose—

Mr. Flannery: Not just now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will curb himself for a moment.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Give way.

Mr. Flannery: When I am told by the Secretary of State, I shall certainly give way.

Mr. Batiste: The House will judge the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's general comments by virtue of the fact that I have never been a councillor in Sheffield. My wife was a councillor and on her first election she won her seat by 19 votes largely due to the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) spoke against her.

Mr. Flannery: I am not allowed to say that the hon. Gentleman has distorted the truth but he knows that he has. The hon. Gentleman, as is fashionable these days, could plead the fifth amendment.
I want to speak about this horrific Bill. I was saying, when interrupted by the hon. Member for Elmet, who has


a ready wit, as an actor must, that there is sickening unanimity within the Conservative party. I believe that Conservative Members—some of whom I know very well and respect—have pocketed their democracy. There is the unanimity of the graveyard on the matter of democracy within the Tory party. Even hon. Members that I have been in Committee with and listened to with great respect are going along with this diktat as if, in some way, there was a process of democracy in it. They know as well as I do that the reason for the Bill is that the Government are weary of negotiation. They have not got anywhere and, like any dictatorial grouping, they finally want a short cut. They have decided to get rid of democracy. It is no use their denying that. The TUC and all the unions are watching with great care this most serious debate on the most important education measure since the 1944 Act. Unlike the 1944 Act, which sought to advance the cause of education, with this Bill the Government are doing their undemocratic utmost to stifle the advance of education. The amendments seek to redeem the Government's reputation, which is steadily being lost, by taking a tiny step in the direction of democracy. Amendment No. 8 is a good example. I was about to refer to it when I was rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Lancaster, who accused me of not wishing to discuss these matters.
Unlike most hon. Members, I sat on the Burnham committee for some years. I will explain to the House exactly what that committee was. Its members were elected in competition within the unions and the employing bodies. The only members who were not elected were those representing the Government.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: They were elected.

Mr. Flannery: They were appointed. Tory Governments and, sadly, Labour Governments, appointed a couple of representatives, but those representatives carried 15 votes—the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—so they could sway the committee by putting their foot down on behalf of the Government. [Interruption.] That is not like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) I have served with him on so many Committees that I almost called him my hon. Friend. But for the present leadership, I believe that he would have been Chairman of the Select Committee.
Clause 1 will repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. Before doing that, the Government took all kinds of steps to make the elected Burnham committee unworkable. The teachers, weary at seeing the committee stymied by the Government, agreed that it should go. They believed that it would be replaced by something equally if not more democratic, but the provisions in the Bill have nothing whatever to do with democracy. The Secretary of State will appoint every member of the new body without any democratic process whatever.

Mr. Maples: He is elected.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not read the Bill. I would not make a statement like that without evidence. Let the Secretary of State give us an answer. He failed to reply to me on Monday about the Bill going for Royal Assent on 19 December. He can deny that now if he likes, although it is not relevant to this debate.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: We want to know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was a member of Sheffield city council, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has alleged. That has not been cleared up.

Mr. Flannery: I thought that it was, but if that is not correct I withdraw it, as it is not in my nature to persist in things that are wrong.

Mr. Batiste: rose—

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman will now graciously thank me.

Mr. Batiste: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous withdrawal, which shows yet again his close knowledge of his own city.

Mr. Flannery: I was already here for much of that time, while the hon. Gentleman was fighting madly to get here.
The interruption from the Secretary of State was not unexpected. I see that he still has the same smile on his face. He would look well waving from a carriage with that smile. Perhaps I may quote Lord Hailsham, one of the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friends. Indeed, I believe that one is supposed to call him the right noble Lord. Lord Hailsham is a democrat who believes that people should be elected. He noticed that when a party was elected with an overwhelming majority there was a tendency to be dizzy with success and drunk with power. He described such a Government—he was, of course, referring to a Labour Government at the time—as an elected dictatorship. As a result of their own interventions, the Tories succeeded in obtaining a bigger majority but a smaller vote in the last election than in the previous election.
They are now pushing things through for which they have no mandate whatever and which are a total violation of democracy, despite their claim that they have been elected and thus have the right to do virtually anything.
The Bill destroys the whole process of negotiation. The trade unions, the Labour party and many other people are watching this debate closely, because if the Bill is accepted the Tories will seek to destroy free negotiation in the public sector generally and then, judging from their reputation since 1979, to attack the trade unions generally. This is being carefully watched by the TUC, the president of which is not unknown to the National Union of Teachers. [Interruption.] Do I even have to tell the Tories his name? Harry will tell them, although he was in the National Association of Schoolmasters rather than the NUT, weren't you, Harry?

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not refer to other hon. Members in that fashion in the House. If he wishes to draw attention to another hon. Member he should do so by reference to that hon. Member's constituency.

Hon. Members: The honourable Harry.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows me well. He even knows my first name.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I give way to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is referring to someone whom I have known for 30 years—Mr. Fred Jarvis. I think that we should be open about the name.

Mr. Flannery: Yes, you have made that clear.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Conservative Members have listened, sometimes noisily but mostly with care, yet we have had very few answers from the Labour party. We believe in collective bargaining if the circumstances exist for it to function properly, but how can the free collective bargaining that the hon. Gentleman holds so sacred operate when there are six unions who cannot agree among themselves and 104 separate employer organisations?

Mr. Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I will give way on one condition—that the hon. Gentleman answers those questions.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, like the Minister, is always insisting on one condition—he has got to have his condition. However, I respect his views even though he does not respect mine. The hon. Gentleman may say that we never give him the expected answers, but quite frankly if I gave him the answer that he expects Big Ben would strike 13. He would never accept any answer. When the hon. Gentleman protests—methinks he protests too much—that he believes in collective bargaining, like the other member of Equity, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), he does not fool us. The hon. Gentleman believes in the Bill. The Bill is totally and utterly opposed to any programme of democracy or any free collective bargaining.
On Monday night I was present for the debate on the Bill. I left the Chamber to perform a natural function. [Interruption.] I went to eat. I am sure that everybody denounced me for leaving the Chamber. When I returned I made a brief speech. It was shortened by the continual intervention of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). He is not here at present. The hon. Gentleman intervenes in every speech if hon. Members are daft enough to let him. I think that Conservative Members think the same as I do about that hon. Gentleman.
I went out of the House to pick up a copy of The London Evening Standard which always claims it has standards. On the front page it said "Victory". The victory apparently was against Mr. Chirac. We understand now that Mr. Mitterrand had told Mr. Chirac repeatedly not to introduce the Bill because it would cause endless trouble.
Mr. Chirac went ahead and put forward a Bill, not as draconian as this one, but a Bill that upset large numbers of people, and finally he had to withdraw it. I am not saying that this Bill will be withdrawn by this unregenerate Government and their Minister who, frankly, does not understand state education.
The Bill is causing unnecessary trouble. If the money had been provided two years ago, there would be no trouble now. I appeal to the Minister to put in the place of the advisory council a freely, honourably elected organisation which will discuss the issues democratically and honestly. If we did that, the Government and ourselves would not be in this present mess. I ask him to do something democratic to help education rather than attack free collective bargaining, thereby disrupting our schools and setting back education for years.

Mr. David Madel: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield,

Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). I recall his interventions and questions in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts between 1979 and 1983. I honestly do not think that, if that Select Committee were considering the Bill, the hon. Gentleman would have painted such a lurid picture. He spoke of Domesday, comparisons with France, a terrible attack on trade union rights—

Mr. Flannery: It is a terrible Bill.

Mr. Madel: It is not a terrible Bill. In a few words I wish to explain to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members why I do not believe that to be the case.
First, the Bill is a temporary measure; it expires in March 1990. Before that time there must be a general election. There may be two general elections and I hope—

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Pardon?

Mr. Madel: I cannot concentrate too well at the moment, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend shortly.
There may be more than one general election and I hope that education is a major issue of any election. Having listened to the past two and a half hours of debate, anyone would think that what is being proposed will last year after year. That is not so. The central point is that a new system of bargaining must be created for the teaching profession. The present system has broken down, but one cannot create a new system overnight. Collective bargaining works only if there is a recognised and reasonable framework within which it can operate. That framework exists in other public sector industries, but it has not always been the case.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett)—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—painted a picture of an unending flow of marvellous collective bargaining in the United States and western Europe. The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot that, from time to time, collective bargaining has been interrupted by democratically elected Governments. There were the statutory wage policies imposed by the Labour party and the Conservative party—some of my hon. Friends voted for that between 1970 and 1974, although they wish to forget it. My hon. Friends may have changed their minds—and indeed a party can change its mind on such matters.
I remember that, in the 1960s, the late President Kennedy intervened in the collective bargaining process within the steel industry and imposed a settlement. The history of collective bargaining is not an even progress towards paradise, it is a bumpy ride. The Government have had to bring in the Bill because of difficulties in the teaching profession.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) often mentions ACAS. I think that he is a convert to the role of ACAS in this dispute. I wish the hon. Gentleman had said in 1985—many of us did—that ACAS should intervene—and at a much earlier stage than the unions agreed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in June 1985 ACAS formally asked all unions to come to it and to start negotiations on how to get out of the problem. My goodness, there was a problem in 1985. School after school was disrupted, parent after parent was worried about how his child would do in the O and A-level examinations in 1985. Some unions did not respond positively to ACAS. Frankly, the Opposition did not push anything like as hard as they should have done about this matter.

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman was a supporter of the idea of ACAS coming into the negotiations, but as I recall, the Secretary of State did not respond to his request, which he made during Question Time. I wish to inform him, for the record, that I was in close contact with ACAS throughout 1985 and I strongly supported its intervention which led to the trade unions and the employers getting together under the ACAS agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he supports the ACAS agreement.

Mr. Madel: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but the ACAS agreement is not firm. Let me give him another example of where things went wrong but the Opposition remained silent.
In October 1985 the then chairman of employers made a wage offer and the general secretary of the NAS/UWT said that there should be early discussions, without preconditions, of that offer. The hon. Gentleman should note the date. The NUT would have nothing to do with it. There was another three months of do-nothingism and classroom disruption and another three months of parents getting more and more worried as the 1986 O and A-level examinations approached.
No Government can sit idly by and wash their hands of the matter.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Madel: I shall give way in a moment.
The Secretary of State has a duty to maintain a good education service. That is enshrined in the Education Act 1944.
Another trade union decided to disrupt and cause trouble in the autumn of 1985, even when its sister unions were calling for early discussions on the improved pay offer put forward by the then chairman of the Labour employers.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has made an implied criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for not pushing for negotiation. But what was the Secretary of State doing all that time? The Secretary of State has a role and a responsibility for education. He should have tried to get the parties together, but time after time he washed his hands of the entire matter. He did not produce the money.

Mr. Madel: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. If he studies Hansard he will see that the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), consistently welcomed the intervention of ACAS in the summer of 1985. He was as aghast as we were that we had another three months of standstill in autumn 1985 because the NUT would not respond to the NAS/UWT request that there should be early discussions.
Opposition Members' other worry concerns the funding of education. Since 1979, there has been a steady increase in central funding of certain subjects. The hon. Member for Hillsborough has supported that. He has signed the agreement of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts that the Secretary of State should take additional powers and strengthen the curriculum when he feels that it is defective. I know that the hon. Member will remember that there was such a recommendation in one of our reports. Nevertheless, the

Opposition worry about centralism. The curriculum has been improved and the Secretary of State has done his duty by the 1944 Act.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I want something balanced. We have visited many countries to study their education systems. I know that, like me, he wants the utmost democracy, but with the Bill the Secretary of State is taking powers that are draconian in the extreme. Everything for which we have struggled for years is under ruthless attack. I cannot believe that many Conservative Members quite understand that. I know them and I cannot believe that they are going along with the Bill.

Mr. Madel: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have studied the Bill carefully and I do not believe that it gives the Secretary of State draconian powers.
It would not be right for me now to discuss new clause 11, which I have tabled, but my right hon. and hon. Friends have said many times that they want schools to have greater control over how money is spent and for teachers to have greater power to make adjustments to salaries as and when they think fit. That is an example of our democratising the education service. We are trying to make head teachers more responsive to what parents want.
To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that these temporary powers will somehow be used to cause a mighty collision with the trade unions in the teaching profession. I do not believe that anything like that will occur. The Bill is simply a bridge to try to achieve a settlement while we build in improved negotiating machinery.
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does nothing, the dispute will drag on. Of course the dispute is upsetting to teachers, ratepayers and the Government, but it is supremely upsetting to parents, who are desperately worried that, if it goes on, their children's examination results will suffer and that that will affect their job opportunities. The Bill is simply a temporary bridge to try and achieve a settlement. I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State often, and I cannot believe that he wants to do anything other than work with the teaching trade unions to build a better education service.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) is reading the Bill with rose-tinted spectacles. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State and other Conservative Members agree with his definition of the Bill's purpose, but I am afraid that I cannot isolate what is being done from other trends and the actions and attitudes of the Secretary of State. I deplore the fact that the Secretary of State announced education policy on a sympathetic television programme. I hope that he will say something about that when he winds up the debate.
We must consider the Bill in the context of the crisis that has emerged in Burnham and of the pattern in education, in regard to which the Secretary of State's irresponsible attitude on television last Sunday was but the latest emanation.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: It was good.

Mr. Spearing: The ideas might have been good, but it is not in order to discuss that now.
If the Secretary of State is to fulfil his duties and responsibilities, he should produce a White Paper, make


a statement in the House and make a speech about his plans. He should adhere to the customary procedures rather than come out with one or two superficially attractive ideas on a sympathetic television programme that is watched by millions of people. I am not suggesting that he does not have a right to go on such a programme, but if he makes statements in that way he is not fulfilling his proper function as Secretary of State in a parliamentary democracy.
I am a member of the National Union of Teachers. I taught in the classroom for 14 years before I came here. My tone might therefore be less light-hearted than that of some Conservative Members appears to be. When one has been at the bottom of the heap for 14 years, one understands a little more about the feelings of people who are being made to feel almost like peasants or peons. I challenge Conservative Members, especially those who have been in one of the caring professions—I see one present—to imagine what they would feel if their historic negotiating machinery, which had been built up over nearly a century, was swept away by a Secretary of State who came in from another Department and presented a Bill such as this, which is being pushed through the House within one week. Experience of being at the bottom of the heap is the basis of my feelings, and the Secretary of State knows that, but for a single vote on a certain selection panel in 1970, that is where I would be now.

Mr. Hunter: I also taught for 14 years and feel that I can intervene on the basis of some experience. During the hon. Gentleman's 14 years of membership of the NUT, what positive input did he have into that union's debates to overcome the inner flaw of Burnham—the separation of pay and conditions?

Mr. Spearing: I am still a member of the NUT. During my 14 years as a teacher, I was a member of my local association and of wider areas and I went to conference. The arrangements under which the Burnham committee operated were set down in the Education Act 1944. That Act was the fixed point within which the various bodies manoeuvred until 1963, when Lord Boyle of Handsworth, who was then Secretary of State, introduced his infamous Boyle's law, which is the predecessor of this Bill. I have no doubt that the people who drafted the Bill examined Boyle's law first, but they have taken twice the length to do the same job.
The difficulties that were perhaps apparent in the education world after 1944 did not centre on difficulty with the operation of the Burnham committee. Things were very gentlemanly, or ladylike—I must be careful with the modern idiom. I was a member of the west Lambeth branch of the NUT. It was regarded as a militant association. I do not know what educational establishment the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was in, but when NUT representatives went to speak to their colleagues on the teachers' panel of the Burnham committee and their partners, the employers—that was the attitude taken—little was said about figures. It was not until 1957 that the west Lambeth association put a resolution to the annual general meeting of the NUT that we wanted to see a basic scale of £600 to £1,200 a year for teachers. Until that time, those who went into negotiation on Burnham did not have any mandate from the conference.
My reply to the hon. Gentleman is that at that time much more important matters in education were on the table than the apparent snagging up of Burnham, which has apparently happened now, although I do not believe that the statutory structure bequeathed to us by Michael Stewart, now Lord Stewart of Fulham, was as bad as has been made out. It has been snagged up more by personalities and events than by the statutory framework which the Bill seeks to replace.
Lord Boyle of Handsworth set the ball rolling 23 years ago by rejecting an agreement selectively agreed by teachers and employers. That agreement did not come after such difficulties as we have experienced in the past two or three years. It was reached after perhaps three months. On the flimsy excuse that differentials were not adequate, the officials persuaded Sir Edward Boyle, as he was then, that he should use his reserve powers under the 1944 Act and reject that agreement, as he had a statutory right to do.
The impact on staff rooms around the country was great. I had the privilege of teaching at Wandsworth school—now, alas, defunct through falling rolls. We had a fine collection of staff members who had worked together for five or six years without knowing what letters came after other people's names, without wondering what institutions others went to, or whether they had letters after their names at all. There were some two-year trained teachers taking A-levels in the sixth form, and there were some well-qualified, first-class honours graduates taking nearly remedial pupils. The proud boast of the headmaster of that school was that the most expensive department of the school was the remedial department.
When the Boyle bombshell burst, so great was the indignation at that school that a number of us went on unofficial strike and went to Curzon street to try to interview Lord Boyle, whom we regarded as selling out the education service through his arrogant approach. As we were mounting the steps, it emerged that of the three of us in the delegation selected to speak for those who had taken off the last period of school to try to make an impact, one was a member of the Liberal party, one was a member of the Conservative party and one was a member of the Labour party. We were all in receipt of special responsibility allowances, and we were all going on unofficial strike against being paid more. The best of British education was found in that staff room. We knew that once the Boyle Bill went through, any Secretary of State, ever after, would have powers of virtual dictatorship on the Burnham committee and that that would cause trouble and difficulty.
I shall not say that the last few years of trouble and difficulty have been entirely and only the fault of the way in which the Secretary of State has used his powers, either directly and indirectly. Every Conservative Member will know that the previous Secretary of State had some definite ideas about what he wanted out of Burnham, and over the three years of travail that we have had, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had his share in fouling up the system. One could go on arguing for years about relative responsibilities, but he played a part.
The 1963 Bill was the predecessor of this Bill. Between 1965 and 1985 we had, not the Boyle Act, but the Stewart Act, the one that is with us now. The difficulties that we face have not been inevitable within the working of that Act. Let me explan why I think that in education there


must be a balance between corporate responsibility and individual limited licence. The essential element of what we try to do in the House in our parliamentary democracy is one of the great philosophical themes about which we can agree.
A great deal has been heard recently about the wishes of parents. However, the wishes of parents in one school are not the only important factor. There is the concern of the public as a whole, and that group of people have a corporate responsibility. If there is anybody who represents that public responsibility it is the Secretary of State, whether he be the one who is sitting in the Chamber, his predecessor, or his successor. That person is a public trustee. He is not at the apex of line management.
The Secretary of State is not like the Minister for Health, who is a super-manager. Whether or not he has a health board, the Minister for Health is in line management. He has the whole of the health industry, to use phrases that Conservative Members like to use, and he is at the apex of it. However, the Secretary of State is a public trustee for the whole nation. His remit is not only in the public sector, but is in the private sector too. He has responsibility for the licensing of schools, making sure that teachers are there, and so on. It is a big and responsible remit and he is the representative of the nation and the public at large, all of whom have an interest in the future and, therefore, by definition, in our educational establishment, and not just those who are fortunate enough to have children at school at the time.
There are also the representatives of the local interest, those who are living in the close community, whether it be Nottingham, Rugby, Leicester or any of these optimum-sized towns which are so characteristic in Britain. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) nodding, because what is right for Leicester may not be right for Rugby, Nottingham or Newham. The local public also have an interest, and their corporate and collective representative is the local education authority.
What about those who operate the system — the employees, the teachers? This set of amendments is about the corporate identity of teachers and their interests. They, as a group, can be exploited. It is easy to exploit teachers because, by and large, teachers have a conscience about what they are doing. They know just how vital their job is. I can remember the psychological strain of the few months before I came to this place, which was caused by being responsible for 500 pupils in a London secondary school. That strain was very great, especially as a munificent Ministry of Education had given me just a room to share with three other people.

Mr. Fatchett: That sounds like the House of Commons.

Mr. Spearing: No, it was far worse. That school was built in 1956 and was subject to the Horsbrugh cuts. Teaching is a much more exacting job than being a Member of Parliament.
It is easy for parents and the public to exploit teachers. The teachers should collectively state that they want a remuneration broadly equivalent to that received by other people discharging similar responsibilities.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Can my hon. Friend enlighten us about the Horsbrugh cuts?

7 pm

Mr. Spearing: Dame Florence Horsbrugh was a very well-known politician in the 1950s. When I joined the teaching profession, she suddenly decided that schools should not be as well provided for as they had been. There was a series of building cuts, and that meant that when I began teaching I walked around 19 rooms a week. I recall that the day after the Horsbrugh cuts were announced the evening papers had a placard that read, "Credit squeeze off—Official." Difficulties with resources from Tory Governments are not new; we have had them for the past 30 years.
There is a corporate responsibility of and a corporate need for teachers to get together. Many people have asked why the unions scrap rather than get together. Conservative Members may not understand what has happened. The history of education in this country is, sadly, unlike that of Germany and some other continental countries. In 1902, instead of reorganising around a rational system, the then Tory Government did a spatchcock job in the Education Act 1902. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to shed tears over decisions taken in Germany in the last century, but similar decisions should have been taken in Britain in 1902.
In 1902 there were many different schools with different traditions—grammar schools, the so-called public schools, technical schools, the all-age schools in rural areas and—after the 1920s—the new central schools in city areas. As class distinctions were, to put it bluntly, very much to the fore in those days, each type of school with its own tradition had its own collective association organised in counties and districts. At one stage the National Union of Teachers represented a rather wider range of staff than it does today. However, there was a dispute about equal pay, and one section of members—now represented by a leading union—hived off from the NUT. The unions and associations have reflected, and still reflect, some of the deep historic roots of our educational structure.
Conservative Members may forget that, unless the traditions, aspirations and attitudes are reflected in some form of collective bargaining, the ventilation of those aspirations will be suppressed. We all know that, if people believe that their case is not being put or if their gut feelings are not aired, they will not be happy with the form of discussion.
I believe that a wide range of traditions, practices and aspirations have come together over the years on the Burnham committee. That is not necessarily a disadvantage, because it adequately and properly reflects some of the traditions, backgrounds and positive virtues of the variety in our system. That is what Conservative Members must confront. However, the Secretary of State comes along with very strong views on how education should be conducted. He says that he wants to weed out the bad teachers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was challenged about criticisms of teachers. Anyone who can use the words "weed out bad teachers" has misunderstood the position. That is rather like saying "Weed out bad MPs"—[Interruption.] The public have a chance to do that every five years. They will make their judgment and that is not a partisan point.
If a teacher is appointed, passes his probationary year, is registered with the Secretary of State—he is given a


number and is therefore qualified—and is regarded as suitable for selection and training—paid for at public expense — there should be an obligation on the profession and teaching organisations to improve the standard of teachers. That is what we want. I am glad to see Conservative Members nodding. However, the Secretary of State has marched in and said that he wants to weed out the weak and bad teachers. What a way to start negotiations.

Mr. Jack Dormand: My hon. Friend has made a serious point and given us another example of the Government's hypocrisy. As I have always said and as I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree, there is nothing worse than the teacher who does not reach the required standard to continue as a teacher for the rest of his life. The education of thousands of children is involved.
There are several remedies for the problem. First—and I cannot understand why this has not been tried—if by the end of a three-year training period, the trainers do not realise that certain students will not become successful teachers, the trainers are not up to the job. Secondly, there used to be a one-year probationary teaching period during which teachers were examined by Her Majesty's inspectors and a local authority. I am not sure whether that procedure is still followed. I support my hon. Friend's point. There should be no question of weeding out. Decisions should be taken in the first year. The Government have been hypocritical. Why have they not done something about that, when they have been in power since 1979?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has underlined my point. The real, underlying magnetic forces in education have not been understood either by the previous Secretary of State or by the present one, as evidenced by his action in introducing the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I should like to come in on cue. Before the intervention of the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), the hon. Gentleman asked a rhetorical question along the lines of: "What are the Government going to do about the teachers who, as a result of appraisal, are considered not to be performing well?" I remind him that I have announced an increase in in-service training next year amounting to £200 million. That is the largest amount of money that we have devoted within the education service to the in-service training of teachers, and it will allow about 100,000 teachers next year—approximately a quarter of the profession—to have courses lasting for up to four weeks.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, because his motives in that regard are exceptional. If I may revert to the dimensions of the classroom — which perhaps even he has not understood—in-service training should be carried out in the school. It cannot necessarily be carried out through courses. By his reply, the Secretary of State shows that he has to some extent misunderstood the point. A teacher may be incapable of doing the job. A teacher may be magnificent in one school, but, when he goes to a difficult area, he may not be able to cope with the classes or the social surroundings in which the school is situated. What he needs more than most is encouragement, help and assistance from his colleagues.

Mr. Fatchett: That is right.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. When I was elected to Parliament, I left behind a school in which, nearly every evening, I had to stay behind with one or other of my colleague teachers and talk about the problems that they faced day after day. I also had to deal with some weeping teachers, weeping parents and weeping children. Teachers need assistance from their colleagues.
When a good teacher is selected to be a head of department, head of house, tutor or whatever, he does not think about promotion or about the next rung on the ladder, about which the Secretary of State is so keen. The teacher is giving out to his colleagues. That is the motivation. The satisfaction that he gets from doing a good job and helping his colleagues and the children transcends a great deal of the so-called career structure. Many of the assumptions about collective bargaining made by Conservative Members are quite wrong and out of keeping with what happens.
People working in a metal-working factory, or even in Sainsburys, Woolworths, or Boots, have managerial expertise and operate on a set of criteria. Those dealing with human beings have different criteria. To some extent, these are opposite rules. Despite that, the Secretary of State believes that a career structure with wider differentials will do the trick. I shall not say that it is not welcome because of the extra pay, but I suggest that the Secretary of State's assumptions about what motivates teachers are not as accurate as they might be.

Mr. Hunter: I appreciate a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is much common ground. The message that I get from head teachers in my constituency is that these differentials are needed not to attract teachers but to retain them, in particular in areas of high employment—thank goodness there are some—where they seek other jobs.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is right. On this issue, there is a good deal of agreement among practical teachers. I have encountered difficulties, particularly with craft and technical training. It is impossible, even for schools with a high reputation and good collegiate atmosphere, to hold teachers, because they are offered jobs elsewhere with higher rates of pay. I suggest—again, this is a matter directly related to collective bargaining—that we need a structure of remuneration that reflects the demands for comparable skills and services in the general market.
The Secretary of State is bringing market forces into the classroom to an inappropriate degree, and in the end that will cause disaster. We shall be doing away with the power and responsibility of local education authorities. If they are not responsible in negotiations for directly determining the remuneration of teachers, their raison d'etre will disappear. Will local education authorities be reduced to the status of employers of caretakers, repairers of windows and wholesale suppliers of textbooks, soap and cleaning materials? That will happen if Conservative Members' wishes are taken to their logical conclusion. Local education authorities will be quartermaster agents of Queen Elizabeth house. That is what the Secretary of State will end up with—indeed, he more or less said so when he talked about city technology colleges being the forerunners of a new system.
Corporate collective bargaining is necessary in our education system. Every partner, including the Secretary


of State, represents a corporate interest. Unless the partners can express that interest and co-operate within a satisfactory and proper statutory framework, the cooperative needs of education will not be met. The present legislation may need some amendment, but it does not need the changes that we are considering tonight.

Mr. Pawsey: I wish to make a brief speech, if only because the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke for about 40 minutes. It is significant that, so far, this batch of amendments has attracted more than four hours' debate. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) sought to suggest that the distinctions between the ACAS proposals in Nottingham and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were relatively small.

Mr. Radice: indicated assent.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman shows his agreement. He will be aware that we are not considering small distinctions. We are talking about nearly £85 million. Even in the context of Government spending, that is not a small sum.

Mr. Radice: I have pointed out a number of times, as has, I think, even the Secretary of State, that if the date of implementation—I am talking not about the January date but about the autumn date—is moved a month, it will immediately save over £40 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.

Mr. Pawsey: Even if we accept what the hon. Gentleman said, we are still talking in terms of another £45 million. Even then, as he knows, that is not the end of the difference between the two sides. Arguments about conditions of service still have not been resolved. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the increase proposed by my right hon. Friend amounts to about 16·5 per cent. In anybody's language, that is a substantial increase. I am amazed that we do not have more agreement from Labour Members on these major points.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) made much the same point. He appeared to forget the 16·5 per cent. increase and the £600 million. He also forgot the talks and protracted negotiations which have gone on month in and month out. They have not brought any solution.
The hon. Gentleman referred to centralisation. He chose to forget circular 10/65. He chose to forget the Education Act 1976 which was passed when he was a member of the Government. I shall refresh his memory. That Act was centralist in the most extreme form. It took away the right of local education authorities to decide their own form of education. It said, "Whether thou likes it or not, thou shalt go comprehensive." God knows, many of our children have regretted that decision. That decision was made by his colleague, known to us as Shirl the Pearl in the days when she was more Socialist than Democrat. I remind the Member for Greenwich that we shall not take any lectures on centralisation from him or from his Opposition colleagues.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend recall the fate of the direct grant grammar schools which suffered from the same type of diktat?

Mr. Pawsey: I do. I must tell my hon. Friend—he is probably not aware of it—that we still have grammar schools in Rugby and Kenilworth, and they are now under threat from a Socialist-alliance controlled county council. Many parents in my constituency are anxious for those grammar schools to be retained.

Mr. Barnett: Of course, the hon. Gentleman will recall that direct grant schools were abolished by his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), will he not? I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's opinion is now. In my speech, I referred to the education service as a national service locally administered. National Government have every right to lay down general parameters within which the local authority runs the education service. The Government are taking away all rights with regard to the negotiation of pay and conditions. Does the hon. Gentleman see the difference between taking away those rights and those general parameters in respect of the way in which primary or secondary education is organised?

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Hon. Members should return to the amendments.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to you for that courteous advice, Mr. Armstrong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) has had the privilege during his period in Parliament of being an honourable Friend to both of us.

Mr. Marlow: On the subject of centralisation, I wonder whether my hon. Friend would give hope to his constituents by assuring them that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will in no way agree to a system of comprehensivisation from a Socialist local authority in Warwickshire?

Mr. Pawsey: I am more than delighted to listen to my hon. Friend, but he must appreciate that it is with some difficulty that I put words in my right hon. Friend's mouth. However, I do not have the slightest doubt that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider any proposals made to him. I hope that he will listen carefully to the representations of Warwickshire Members of Parliament who happen to believe deeply in the principle of grammar schools.
I thought that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was not being as fair as he might have been to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The full quotation of her words is in Hansard. She said:
we tried hard within the Burnham machinery to make it work, but we did not succeed. That is why the Bill is needed, that is why we must have some interim arrangements for involving an advisory committee, and that is why the Bill provides for consultation with the local authorities and the unions and why the Government's conclusion should be referred to Parliament.
Frankly, I see no reason why my hon. Friend should in any way be ashamed of her admirable phrase.

Mr. Fatchett: I ask the hon. Gentleman to note the term used by the Minister of State—
provides for consultation with the local authorities and the unions".—[Official Report, 8 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 109.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right to chastise me for not going further in the quotation. But if I had done so, it would have made my case even stronger.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, and not for the first time. On Monday, he drew an analogy between my speech and football. The hon. Gentleman will recall that instance, so I shall not bore the Committee with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) scored well against the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). He scored and scored again. The point that he made so effectively is worth repeating. First, he said that there is no taking away the right to join trade unions, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central sought to imply at one stage.

Mr. Fatchett: No.

Mr. Pawsey: Oh yes, the hon. Gentleman did. Secondly, my hon. Friend brought out with his usual eloquence the point that the right to strike remains. [Interruption.] Of course I regret teachers going on strike. But the right to strike remains. It is still there to be used.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman referred to me, and he obviously follows the usual courtesies. He rightly said that the loss of the right to bargain, if that is what it is—it is a matter of dispute between us—does not imply the loss of the right to strike. If the unions have the right only to consult, and not to bargain, will not the Bill make it almost inevitable that the only recourse to action will be industrial action? Is there not a danger that, through this legislation, the Government will precipitate industrial action rather than ease industrial relations problems?

Mr. Pawsey: That is a typically gloomy interpretation by the hon. Gentleman. One of his problems is his total inability to see anything worth while in any legislation introduced by the Government. He has a closed mind. If he intends to fulfill his ambition and sit on the Labour Front Bench, he must do something about that.
The justification for the legislation is to be found in the events in Coventry and Nottingham. The legislation is justified by the lack of agreement and the long dispute which has affected so many of our children. The discussions on pay and conditions have ground on month after gloomy month. The only result is that four of the six unions involved have come out firmly against the Nottingham agreement. As the negotiations have continued, the gulf has widened, not the reverse. It is significant that those four unions represent between one third and one half of teachers' union membership. The Opposition must understand that.
Clearly, Burnham is outdated. It has outlived its usefulness. It has become blunted by abuse. If the unions cannot agree among themselves, and agreement is still out of sight after months of abortive talks, what should my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do? He has a clear duty imposed on him by the House to ensure adequate teaching for our children. That is what he is doing. That is the object of the legislation.
Government have a duty to the nation's children and a duty to bring order into the negotiations. The Bill, which provides for an interim committee and for consultations with local education authorities and with unions, will be more constructive than Burnham ever was. It will be more constructive than the recent discussions which sought to emphasise differences. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friends and Labour Members to reject the amendments.

Dr. Marek: We have heard a lot of talk from Conservative Members about Burnham having outlived its

usefulness and not being worthy of consideration, but we have heard no reason why it has outlived its usefulness or as to the underlying problems in the teaching profesion which have led to so much discontent. It is a pity that Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), simply say, "Something must be done. Therefore, the Secretary of State is introducing this Bill, which will solve the problems."
The Bill will not solve these problems. It will make them worse. Morale in education is at rock bottom already. Teachers have been hammered year in, year out. The Bill will do nothing about that. It will impose one more burden that teachers will have to bear. They will not be able to negotiate freely or, indeed, at all. Consulations will be reduced to a sham. Teachers will be bound hand and foot and will be required to do the bidding of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend made a valid point about teacher morale. He restricted that remark to teachers in primary and secondary education but I am sure that he will agree that the collapse in teacher morale has occurred at all levels in the education system and is not restricted to primary and secondary teachers. Of course, that is a direct result of the Government's policy and their general attack on education.

Dr. Marek: Of course my hon. Friend is right. The Bill mentions teachers in further education, and we shall discuss that in later amendments.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth told us what the Conservative party is about in resisting—as I suspect it will—many of the amendments. It is in favour of grammar schools and against comprehensive schools. Conservative Members believe that grammar schools were good and that comprehensive schools are bad. They believe in the assisted places scheme and in private education. They will resist the amendments—a large range of which seek to improve the Bill in a small way—partly for those reasons. Having said that, even if the amendments were accepted—they cannot all be accepted because they overlap a little—the Bill would still be extremely bad.

Mr. Madel: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark? Some of us have in our own local education authorities—I stress "our own"—supported a steady, reasonable turnover to comprehensive education. He must withdraw the remark that we are against comprehensive education and not try to smear the entire Conservative party as being against comprehensive education. That is completely wrong and downright mischievous.

Dr. Marek: I reject the charge that my remarks were mischievous. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I tainted him when I said that Conservative Members believe that comprehensive education is bad. However, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth clearly spelt that out. He was, and perhaps is, a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Pawsey: I shall clarify the matter. I speak purely as a freelance. I am not a Parliamentary Private Secretary, although I had the honour of being one to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), in three great Departments of


State: the Department of Education and Science, the DHSS and the Northern Ireland Office. Any qualities which I now possess are entirely due to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear. I thought that he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Education and Science. His views will be made public through the Official Report. I am convinced that when his views are published, the public will see the true nature of the Tory party today. Of course, I have always accepted that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and several other Conservative Members are interested in comprehensive education, but at present the Conservative party is not interested and does not wish a better education system.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that a hard core of the Right who are in command in the Conservative party are totally opposed to comprehensive education? More than 90 per cent. of children are educated in comprehensive schools, but none of them dare attack that fact, because Conservative-voting parents are happy to have their children in comprehensive education.

Dr. Marek: I shall reply to my hon. Friend within the context of the amendments. His point is correct. That is why, when we vote on these amendments, the Government will try to resist them. The amendments would make a bad and odious Bill slightly less odious. But I suspect that nevertheless, the amendments will be voted down.

Mr. Pawsey: So far, the hon. Gentleman's speech has been full of inaccuracies. I am anxious to support the present proven system in the eastern area of Warwickshire because all my children were educated in that system. I speak with knowledge as a parent about what goes on. I tell the hon. Gentleman straight from the shoulder that those schools do a first-rate job. I have no desire to see them wrecked on the altar of political dogma, which is what the hon. Gentleman advocates.

Dr. Marek: I am not saying that some grammar schools do not do a good job. But, of course, it is at the expense of other schools. That is the point. The Conservative party has always been for the privileged classes that know the value of education and can make adequate plans for their offspring. That is not always possible for everyone.
Perhaps in supporting the amendments I can give the House some of the flavour of the problems that have made it necessary for the Government to try to do something. Of course, they did the wrong thing. They produced a Bill which would remove all negotiating rights from the unions. In the 1970s, the teaching profession was, by and large, losing esteem in the public eye. It took the Houghton committee to investigate what should be done, and it produced an excellent report. The Houghton pay scales were not attained, although they were very nearly attained because of the Clegg awards in 1979 and 1980. Since then—this is why the Bill is being discussed today—there has been an erosion of teachers' pay from 1981 and 1982 through to 1986. There has been a slow erosion of teachers' pay and facilities in schools.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): That is not true.

Dr. Marek: If the Minister says that it is not true, will he please stand up and say so? I am always prepared to be educated. There has been a steady erosion in pay from the Clegg awards until the present.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be difficult for any Secretary of State to understand anything about low pay considering that they are paid £1,000 a week?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must return to the Bill and the amendments.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall assist the hon. Gentleman. When we came into office, the index of average teachers' salaries on the retail prices index was taken to be 100. In 1975, under Labour, it was 117. So, in three years of Labour Government it fell from 117 to 100. At the end of the implementation of my proposals in October next year, it will be 127.

Dr. Marek: I am always mindful of the amendments. The Secretary of State's comments are important and pertinent to the amendments, because if everything was well in education neither the Bill nor the amendments would be before us. The Secretary of State quoted the figures at they were when the Conservative party came into office, but of course the Clegg awards were initiated and agreed by the Labour Government. It would have been fairer if he had quoted his figures from the time that the Clegg awards were implemented. That was what I was referring to. From then, salaries went down.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is much more relevant to compare teachers' salaries with other salaries? At the end of the Houghton awards he teachers' index was 100. It has now increased to 294, yet the average non-manual earnings of men and women increased during the same period from 100 to about 359. Compared with other non-manual workers, teachers have lost out steadily throughout the period, and that losing out accelerated after 1979.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend has given us another set of statistics which show clearly that there has been a steady erosion of teachers' pay since 1980.

Mr. Fatchett: Would it not have ben more accurate to make a comparison between the post-Clegg award and the current level of teachers' salaries? My hon. Friend will have noted that the Secretary of State did not make that comparison. He talked about what the figures may be in a few months' time. If the comparison had been made on the basis on which my hon. Friend was arguing and which I have just suggested, his conclusions would have been valid.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I did not put it as succinctly as I could have done. That is precisely what I meant. If the Secretary of State asks for the figures from his civil servants in the Box, he will discover that that is the true position.
The Bill will remove all negotiating rights from teachers. The Secretary of State will dictate conditions and remuneration. There will be an advisory committee, but he will not have to accept its recommendations. He will not even have to consult very far. He may consult if he wishes, but he need not take any notice of the advice given to him.
The problem has been caused not only by the erosion of teachers' pay during the past five or six years but


because the Government have tried to cut public expenditure wherever possible. It does not matter to them where it is or even if it is a small amount; if it can be saved, the Government will try to save it. The result is that our schools are in the worst state that I can remember. In many cases, equipment is completely inadequate. I could give an example in my constituency, but I suspect that I would be ruled out of order if I did so. The general position is that the capital available and the equipment in schools are at the worst level that I can remember.

Mr. Fatchett: That is recognised by Her Majesty's inspectors.

Dr. Marek: As my hon. Friend says, it is recognised by the inspectorate. That is why we have this problem and that is why the Bill was introduced. We have tabled the amendments so that some collective negotiating machinery can remain after the Bill is passed. I suspect that, with their majority, the Government will railroad the Bill through the House. No doubt we shall have to sit very late tonight, but we shall give the Bill careful and detailed consideration before we let them have it.

Mr. Caborn: Does my hon. Friend know that the Secretary of State visited Sheffield, which has major problems with the fabric of some of its school buildings? Those problems put pressure on the teaching profession, so much so that, for the first time in a long time, the local press has considered the matter important enough to make it a major campaigning item and has circulated all the Members of Parliament for Sheffield to draw the matter sharply to their attention and to try to pressurise the Government into providing better facilities in Sheffield.
What we must also realize—this is unfortunate for many Conservative Members—is that in the inner cities, where unemployment is extremely high, children see their brothers and sisters leaving school without jobs. That in itself harms morale in school and puts pressure on teachers. This Administration have constantly attacked the education service, culminating in the imposition of this Bill. We are tabling amendments to try to mitigate its worst effects. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board my hon. Friend's point.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rather anticipated my remarks, because I was about to make some progress in my speech by saying that I have received many representations from teachers and from members of the public about the mess into which the Government have got the country. I do not blame the present Secretary of State or the Minister for that; I blame the Government because of their general economic policies and because they believe that all public expenditure is bad and must be cut, if possible.
I have received some material and letters which I wish to place on record because they will add to the debate and may allow Conservative Members to make up their minds, and perhaps to decide that the legislation is not the best way forward and that we should allow collective bargaining and negotiation, which is what the amendments seek to do. First, may I quote from the parliamentary briefing that I received from the NUT. I dare say that many hon. Members received it. It quotes a letter fom the Minister for Education, H. A. Fisher, to Lord Burnham on 25 November 1919:

I am keenly alive to the great embarrassments and great public disadvantage consequent upon disputes between the Local Education Authorities and the teachers in their employment on the question of salaries"—
things have not changed very much, have they?—
and when in July last I proposed that the Associations of Local Education Authorities and the National Union of Teachers should come together to form a Standing Joint Committee, I did so in the hope and belief that 'an orderly and progressive solution' of an extremely difficult and complicated problem would be best reached in that way. I felt sure that it was better"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] Conservative Members may find it boring—I suspect because they are not interested in making this a better Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a very important debate and we are not helped at all by sedentary interventions from either side.

Dr. Marek: This is an extremely pertinent quotation from a former Minister for Education in a letter to Lord Burnham. Of course, I am reading it because I could never commit it all to memory. It is not unknown for Conservative Members to quote letters.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I have a copy of it.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman might have received a copy, but not everyone has. It is an important quotation that should be placed on the record so that the public knows what is happening.
The letter continues:
I felt sure that it was better for the Local Education Authorities, to whom under our English system of public education so great responsibilities are assigned, and for the Teaching Profession, and for the State, that the problems should be settled if possible by agreement rather than by direct intervention on my part. My confidence has been fully justified.
That statement is the complete opposite in every way possible to what the Government propose. I defy any Conservative Member to find any common ground between that statement and the Bill. The House should ask why, in the space of 67 years, we have moved from black to white. Something must be wrong if such a thing can happen in a comparatively short period.
During that period, we have had the development of local government. It is true that the local government system has developed, but the basic processes of oganisation in central and local government have remained the same. I subscribe completely to the view expressed in 1919, that the employers and teachers should be able to get on with it and to reach an agreement.
The problem is, of course, that by blocking grant restrictions and by grant holdbacks the Government stop the employers and the teachers from reaching an agreement. The amendment is fundamental to the Bill because it would allow a measure of negotiation between the employers and the teachers, before the Secretary of State exercises any of the powers that he would have under the Bill.
The briefing that I have received from the NUT says:
The Bill removes all negotiating rights and establishes in their stead an Advisory Committee with members appointed by the Secretary of State himself. … The Secretary of State has depicted the Bill as a measure to bring to an end the present dispute over teachers' pay. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose of the legislation which seeks to conceal the implications for democracy and civil rights. The Bill removes negotiating rights for teachers, and does not seek to improve the negotiating arrangements.


The NUT can say that again, because it is absolutely right. The Secretary of State's proposals make no provision for negotiation, but sweep it away completely. The teachers would be left almost on their own. The Government tried that with GCHQ—I do not think that they will win that argument—and they are now trying again with the teachers.
Other public servants, as well as other professions, have national joint councils of some sort, for example, there is the building and civil engineering NJC, the engineering NJC, and the electricians NJC. The chief executives and the chief officers of local authorities have NJCs, as do the probation service, the justices' clerks, the municipal airports, and the Police Service Federated Ranks. Local authority fire brigades also have councils where negotiations can take place. The industrial Civil Service has a joint co-ordinating committee and the non-industrial Civil Service has the national Whitley council. The National Health Service has eight Whitley councils including a general Whitley council, and there are councils for ambulance officers, administrative and clerical grades, ancillary staff, community dental services staff, medical and hospital staff, scientific and professional staff, and laboratory staff and technicians.
All those public servants have co-ordinating councils of some sort. So, why are teachers' negotiating rights to be swept away? I shall gladly give way to any Conservative Member who can tell me why negotiating rights will be swept away from the teachers.

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend has just read out a very interesting list. If one considers the present actions of the Secretary of State and applies them to the joint coordinating councils and to other organisations or negotiating bodies, the trade unions in this country appear to be coming under tremendous pressure from the actions of this very centralised Government, and that will affect many tens of thousands of workers.
Although the House is in Committee, our discussions today have serious implications for many trade unions. Within a few months the Government could centralise, or take away the negotiating rights of many thousands of workers. The Government are becoming very dictatorial and appear to be moving further to the Right. In years to come, imagine that—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech; he must make an intervention.

Mr. Caborn: There is not much danger of making a speech when my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is on his feet because he will be speaking for at least another three hours. I need clarification on points as they arise. My hon. Friend made the important point that the Bill is one of the most serious to come before the House in terms of the wider trade union movement.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the importance of the points that I have made. The Bill is special because it relates only to the teachers. It does not even apply to teachers in further education, to whom, at present, the Bill seeks to give some negotiating rights. That is why we have tabled the amendments. My hon. Friend has made an important point and I hope that

he will rise and seek to catch your eye, Mr. Armstrong, later in the debate, and make that point in his own way and in his own good time. I should be interested to hear what he has to say.
The amendments seek to retain some sort of negotiating machinery and some consultation between the teachers' and the employers' organisations. Although there were problems with the Burnham committee, an agreement was signed between four out of the six authorities about 10 days ago. However, the Government made it clear that they would not fund the full cost—whatever pay levels were awarded by that agreement. Of course, if the Government do not fund the full cost, the local authorities and the employers' organisations are subject to grant withdrawals, grant holdbacks and to losing grants if they decide to pay more than the Government are prepared to fund. That is a serious criticism of the present situation in local government as it relates to the employers.
There would be no problem if the Government did not interfere. The Government could even say, "If you go over and above what we recommend, we shall not fund it and you will have to pay for it out of your rate income." In that case, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, the Government insist, as their overriding policy, on grant holdbacks, on blocking grants and on trying to strangle the local authorities. In the recent haggling, the result has been that employers and teachers have not known which way to turn, so they are taking a long time to reach an agreement.
Another problem besetting the Government is that many of the employers' organisations are Labour-controlled. I should be deviating again from the amendment if I were to pursue that argument further so I shall leave it. However, I am sure that that fact is at the back of the Government's mind.
I have received correspondence from the Clwyd division of the NUT. As I do not wish to take too long, I shall not read out the whole letter.

Ms. Clare Short: Read it out.

Dr. Marek: I have received a lot of letters. However, I shall quote just one paragraph from a letter from Mr. Gordon Donaldson, the general secretary of the Clwyd division, who has explained the Bill succinctly, in a way that the Government would not dare:
We see this Bill as a device to set aside the agreement on Pay and Conditions of Service negotiated at ACAS by the Unions and the Local Authority Employers. The Bill, if passed, may well ensure an end to peace and calm in the schools of your constituency".
I take that very seriously indeed. That is why we have tabled the amendments. They would at least allow some negotiation.

Mr. Caborn: Is my hon. Friend's constituent a teacher, and, if so, is he in primary or secondary education, or in some other part of the profession?

Dr. Marek: He is a teacher, whether in a primary or secondary school I do not know. That criticism is levelled at me, and my hon. Friend has caught me out. However, I do know that Mr. Donaldson has long experience of the profession and is committed to raising education standards in Britain. He has the welfare of the children at heart, which the Government do not, whatever the ritual mouthings of various Conservative Members when they


ask, "What about the children?" If they were really concerned about the children, they would have good, well-paid teachers who considered themselves to be professionals with a job to do to the best of their ability, who had the equipment necessary to do it. The Government do not do such things. They try to cut money and lower morale as much as possible. Then, like the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), they say, "Look at these dreadful comprehensives. Look at private schools instead. They are a lot better." I think that I have interpreted what the hon. Gentleman said reasonably correctly.
8 pm
I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the Secretary of State, signed by Doug McAvoy, the deputy general secretary of the NUT. It is an extremely good letter and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) agrees. No doubt that is why Conservative Members made disdainful noises when I referred to it. That letter addressed all the problems, in particular the withdrawal of negotiating rights, and the amendments have been tabled to try to retrieve the position. The letter is also signed by Fred Smithies, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters/ Union of Women Teachers, Geoff Beynon and Joyce Baird, joint general secretaries of the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and Peter Snape, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association. It is dated 5 December 1986.
I appreciate that some hon. Members have a copy of the letter, but some do not. It says:
Dear Secretary of State, The recent negotiations with the employers have covered four issues, one of which was that of future negotiating machinery.
We know that if the Bill is enacted without these amendments there will be no future negotiating machinery. The letter continues:
Considerable publicity has been given to the differences of view held by the various teacher organisations on the total package agreed with the local authority employers. Whilst there may be some division of view about the whole of the package, there are no divisions among the four undersigned teacher organisations on the issue of negotiating machinery.
Those are the major teacher organisations involved on the Burnham committee. They command much respect within that committee. Indeed, they command a majority within the Burnham committee.
The letter goes on to say:
Section 7 of the provisional agreement sets out the agreed views of the teacher organisations together with employers.
I shall not dwell on section 7, because that matter will be more properly addressed when we consider the next set of amendments. However, the letter is pertinent to the amendments that we are considering and the complete abrogation of the negotiating machinery.
The letter continues:
It provides"—
the agreement—
for a National Joint Council to deal with pay and other conditions of service for teachers and in so doing acknowledges the need for discussions with you on your role in the new negotiating machinery.
The unions are even prepared to go to the Secretary of State and say that they would like to discuss the matter with him and come to an agreement. They are all reasonable, fair-minded and moderate people who want the best for our children and the country. They do not

want to see strife, and they want to see morale within the industry increase. Therefore, they are prepared to see the Secretary of State to consider what can be done.
However instead we see a Bill that is being rushed through. It received its Second Reading on Monday, and today, two days later, we are discussing it in Committee and the Government think that there is so little in the Bill that it can be given its Third Reading before midnight. That is simply not true. The Bill is one of the most serious that I remember in my life on this planet, in as much as it takes negotiating rights away from employees.

Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend referred to a letter from the NUT to the Secretary of State. Does he have the reply from the Secretary of State? I am sure that the Committee would be pleased to be given its flavour.

Dr. Marek: I do not have the reply, if indeed there was one. I could give way to the Secretary of State, but it might be better if the Secretary of State, if he has drafted a reply, or had one drafted for him, would give us its contents when he replies to the debate, which will not be long now.

Mr. Caborn: If the Secretary of State does not do that, what does my hon. Friend think might have been in the Secretary of State's reply to the NUT?

Dr. Marek: I do not think that I should attempt to give an opinion. I shall only say that I think that the reply is the Bill, and that is why we have had to put down the amendments that we are debating. We have the Bill. We have the Secretary of State's answer. I do not think that he will withdraw it, although that is what he should do. If he did, I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench would be happy not to press the amendments. Let us go away and see whether we can come to an agreement. If we can do that, there clearly will be no need to press the amendments.
Let me finish the letter. Its final paragraph says:
We are united in our opposition to your Bill 'Teachers' Pay and Conditions' which removes from teacher organisations the right to direct negotiations. We urge you to reconsider your position and to accept the principle that any new negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions of service should include direct negotiation.
That is a sensible and reasonable request. The signatories are prepared to see the Secretary of State to hammer out a generally agreed solution.
It is not too late to do that. I do not accept the reasons given by some Conservative Members that this has been going on for two years and that it is time to put a stop to it; that we should get a sword and cut the Gordian knot and impose a settlement. There is no need for that. Reasonable people would not go that way. However, in many of their acts the Government have not been reasonable or responsible. They have been guided by one aim above everything else—to give more privilege to the rich and to cut public spending for those who need it.

Mr. Nellist: Some hon. Members may not be familiar with the Gordian knot. If that term is to be used again, it might be to the advantage of the Committee if my hon. Friend were to explain its background.

Dr. Marek: I suspect that I would be ruled out of order. I see, Mr. Armstrong, that you are nodding vigorously. I have tried your patience on a number of occasions. However, I have tried to keep within the ambit of the


debate and to address myself to the amendments. However, I have not yet reached the amendments and I want to consider them in a little more detail later.
I had a letter from the Secondary Heads Association. One might have thought that it would support the Secretary of State, as the National Association of Head Teachers has done. However, it takes a different line. That letter, dated 2 December, from T. P. Snape, the general secretary says:
 1. The SHA cannot accept the principle that Teachers Pay and Conditions should be determined by the Secretary of State advised by a Committee on which they have no representation as of right. While we accept that the Burnham Committee has outlived its usefulness, and that both pay and conditions should be negotiated in the same forum, we nevertheless remain strongly of the opinion that settlement imposed by the government, even after consultation with those who the Minister wishes to consult, is unjust, undemocratic, and in the last analysis, totally unworkable. You cannot legislate to ensure the commitment of teachers; our fear is that many currently in the profession will simply ignore any conditions imposed by statute, and that the Government will be impotent to do anything about it. In short, we see this proposed legislation as inevitably leading to further protracted periods of unrest and disruption in the schools.
What can be clearer than that?

Mr. Caborn: It is tragic.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend says that it is tragic.
Tragic" might be the right word to describe it.

Mr. Forth: It is magic.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman says that it is magic. I do not know whether his selectors will think that it is magic when they see what is likely to happen. The lowering of morale, which is already low, will lead to even more difficulties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least share with me the sentiment that we want better education for our children, not education that is continuously disrupted by outside influences.
I have here, too, a letter dated 3 December 1986 from the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, the career teachers union. It is a long letter, which contains a very important passage relating to these amendments. It deals with the abolition of the negotiating and consultation procedures. It regards their abolition as the most damaging part of the Bill. I, too, believe that it is the most damaging part of the Bill. If the negotiating procedures were to be swept away, we should enter a period of discontent and difficulty in our schools.
The NAS/UWT says:
On the question of negotiating machinery the NAS/UWT has led the way in calling for fundamental changes to the present structure. We recognise Burnham's failings and support proposals to unite negotiations of pay and conditions of service in one forum. We are very much opposed to the attempt to take determination of these matters completely out of the hands of the directly elected representatives of the nation's teachers.
The NAS/UWT there says in unequivocal terms that it does not like this part of the Bill and the sweeping way of negotiating rights. Why, therefore, are the Government so obdurate? Would it not be possible for them to introduce a new clause in the other place that would allow for more than just consultation, even if it amounted to only the professional teachers' organisations having the right to representation on the advisory committee? However, that

has to be left for the schedule and I shall not delve into that topic, because if I were to do so I should be ruled out of order straight away.
In its letter, the NAS/UWT also says:
Such a move would cause considerable resentment among the vast majority of teachers who naturally want the right to have their voice heard in detailed discussions over the complex issues of teachers' pay and conditions. A more realistic way of seeking to reduce future conflict in negotiations would be the establishment of a mechanism to maintain the level of teachers' pay in relation to their comparators. We note with considerable regret that such a guarantee is another important element missing in the recently"—

Mr. Caborn: I am wondering, Mr. Armstrong, whether it would be possible for my hon. Friend to give the date of the letter from which he is quoting? The Committee is thankful to my hon. Friend for bringing it to its attention.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to read another letter.

Dr. Marek: I am nearly at the end of the letters from which I wish to quote, Mr. Armstrong. There is only one more. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) for his timely intervention.
The letter is dated 3 December. It then says:
We note with considerable regret that such a guarantee is another important element missing in the recently signed agreement.
If the Secretary of State were to agree to the NAS/UWT's suggestion and provide machinery whereby salaries were fixed by means of comparators to arrive at a settlement, it would be accepted by the teaching profession. It is accepted by the police, the Army and the fire service. Why is it not possible to have something like that for the teaching profession? The NAS/UWT's suggestion is sensible. It would do away with the need for clause 1 and these amendments.
Finally—

Mr. Clement Freud: Oh, no.

Dr. Marek: I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that I am referring only to the letters, not to the final part of my speech.
The Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has also written an interesting letter. It says:
As a matter of principle, however, we totally reject the suggestion that the Government's interest and your responsibilities are such as to justify the effective abolition of collective bargaining procedures between the organisations which represent teachers and their employing authorities.
Not merely do we regard the rights of employees to negotiate direct with their employers as being a fundamental characteristic of a democratic society, we are convinced that orderly industrial relations can in the long term flow only from such a process.
A professional organisation is again saying that it is convinced that if this is to be put right it can be put right only if we retain some form of negotiating procedure, to which the amendments address themselves.
The union then says:
We therefore cannot accept that the Government is justified in seeking to confer upon you (and your possible successors)"—
the letter is written to the Secretary of State—
the power to determine teachers' pay and conditions as you think fit. Nor do we accept that the consultative arrangements


the Bill proposes are at all adequate to ensure that teachers will consider your determinations to be equitable. It is, in our view, far more likely that teachers, deeply resentful of terms and conditions implemented by government imposition, will lose all impulse to contribute the commitment which lies beyond their purely contractual obligations.
That is a new point that is not mentioned in the other letters. Teachers do much more than their contracts demand. It is upon that commitment that the quality of the education service relies.
The letter contiues:
We urge the Government with all the sincerity at our command to reconsider what we are convinced to be an unwise and tragically counter-productive initiative. Because of the widespread interest in the matter, I am releasing this letter to the media.
I hope that the Government will take that plea seriously. If the quality of teaching is to be over and above that which would be regarded by the Secretary of State as adequate, teachers have to be motivated. If they have to be motivated, they have to be satisfied with their terms and conditions of employment. They have to be satisfied with their salary. They must have high morale.
If clause 1 is not amended—I hasten to add that even if it is, it will still be a bad Bill—those things will not be achieved. I have letters from teahers' organisations, from the SHA, the NAS/UWT, and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, which spell it out clearly. They say, "Why cannot the Secretary of State give us something, and say that some negotiation will be allowed at a future stage?" If that cannot be done now in Committee, we shall do it later in the other place.
I should like to refer next to the International Labour Organisation convention that was ratified by the United Kingdom in March 1980. It deals with negotiations and the rights of individuals acting collectively to take part in collective negotiations and agreements affecting their terms and conditions of service.

Mr. Caborn: As my hon. Friend has now been speaking for nearly an hour, I wonder whether I can summarise that part of his speech. For a long time the Secretary of State has been rejecting the opinion of many professional bodies, and he is bulldozing legislation through the House of Commons against all that professional advice. On the other hand, he is trying to tell young people that teachers are responsible and should be looked up to, yet he is denigrating them by rejecting all that professional advice. Then he says that the teachers should act professionally towards the young people. Does that summarise the first hour of my hon. Friend's speech?

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his succinct summary. I have taken a little longer, but it is an extremely important matter, to which the Government should pay attention. I am sorry that so far we have not been able to make them see the error of their ways in introducing the Bill.

Mr. Nellist: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) will agree with this, because he was on the same Committee as I was. In a previous incarnation, when the Secretary of State was at the Department of the Environment, there was the same seeking of professional opinion and setting it aside during the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan county councils. Perhaps history is repeating

itself, as can be seen in the first hour of the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is master in his own Department or whether he is doing the bidding of his mistress in No. 10 Downing street.

Mr. Don Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. One of the Ministers who is now present will reply to the important points that my hon. Friend is making, yet the three of them are just talking.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me.

Dr. Marek: This is important. I should like to rephrase what I have just said. I hope that the Secretary of State is master in his own house, in the Department of Education and Science, and not doing the bidding of the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. I suspect that he is doing the bidding of the Prime Minister, but it would be nice if, for once, he broke out and said, "In view of all the opinion in all parts of the country, let us treat the teachers like the grown-up, responsible beings they are and allow them negotiations and some say in how their profession should develop." That is all that we in the Opposition are asking for. Is it too much to have some movement by the Government on that issue?
Let me make progress and refer to the ILO convention. I shall not be long. [HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."] The convention was ratified by the United Kingdom in March 1980. I am at a loss because I have two pieces of paper—a National Union of Teachers' briefing and a photocopy of the convention.

Ms. Clare Short: Read it out.

Dr. Marek: I will. Unfortunately, it is referred to as article 4 of ILO convention 98 in the NUT briefing, and in the photocopy it is article 7, under part IV:
Procedures for Determining Terms and Conditions of Employment".
One must be right.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is article 7.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In that case, I shall confine myself to article 7. It states:
Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between the public authorities concerned and public employees' organisations, or of such other methods as will allow representatives of public employees to participate in the determination of these matters.
Hon. Members should note the last few words. Where are they in the Bill? Where is participation mentioned? There is no participation. It is diktat by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He will decide. He will consult if he wishes, make a recommendation, implement it and there will be no appeal. We shall all like it or lump it. That is the way that the Government are going. They will not succeed.
I am not a lawyer. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends will develop this point later. I wonder whether we should be debating the amendments and whether the Bill should be before us in its present form because it is counter to the ILO convention ratified by the United Kingdom.

Mr. Max Madden: ; My hon. Friend is making a serious point. There is a widespread belief that the Bill breaches international law, including an ILO convention. Like him, I am not a lawyer. Does he believe that the Attorney-General has been consulted on those matters by the Government and the Prime Minister? Has the Solicitor-General been consulted? If they have, does my hon. Friend think that they have offered a view and, if so, what does he think that view is?

Mr. Barnett: Did he write a letter?

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend think that if they were consulted they were encouraged, perhaps over a weekend, to write a letter that was private and confidential? If that was so, is my hon. Friend not as surprised as I am that the letter has not been widely leaked and brought into the public domain via the Press Association?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) pursues that line, he will be out of order.

Dr. Marek: I take your advice, Mr. Armstrong, before entering on that line. Let me make just one sort comment. I hope that some of my hon. Friends who know more about the legal side of these matters than I do will present to use an exposition of the reasons why clause 1 could be against the ILO convention.

Mr. Nellist: I understand the reluctance of my hon. Friend to get involved in the Australian connection. One thing puzzles me. My hon. Friend may come to it later. It is the date of deratification of an ILO convention. A year or so ago I took part in many debates in the House on ILO convention 26, which was deratified by the Government. That convention protected the wages of people under 21. A year's notice had to be given before the ILO convention could be deratified. Would the Government have to give similar notice when applying for deratification of this ILO convention? If that was so, it might delay the passage of the Bill.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes an important point. If I give the information on the convention, perhaps my hon. Friend can comment on it in his own speech if he catches your eye, Sir Paul. However, I do not know the answer to my hon. Friend's question. I know that some of the amendments seek to change the date of the Bill's implementation from, I think, 1987 to 1988, or from 1986 to 1987. I just wonder whether we were wise to table our amendments, as they may give the Government an excuse to deratify the convention, if that is what they have to do for the Bill to be enacted. However, I am an eternal optimist, and I still hope that the Government will see the folly of their ways and will change the Bill in some way.

Mr. Freud: As we come into the second hour of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I wonder whether he can give the House some indication of its shape, so that we can pace ourselves.

Dr. Marek: I am happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise to him if he wishes to speak later in the debate.

Mr. Freud: indicated dissent.

Dr. Marek: I see that he is shaking his head, but in case he does wish to speak, I shall try to bring my remarks to

an expeditious conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO".] The hon. Gentleman asked me about the shape of my speech, and the answer is that I am trying to get the Government to think again and to allow some sort of negotiation.
Later, I shall go quickly through the amendments. Several options have been put forward, and I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench for thinking up so many possibilities, as they give the Secretary of State something to go on. But the right hon. Gentleman can also fall back on letters from the teachers' organisations promising co-operation and help, and asking why they, as sensible and reasonable people, cannot talk to him in order to hammer out an agreement.
In pressing these amendments, we are trying to give the Government a partial way out. The Bill will still be bad, but if they accept some of the amendments or reject them but introduce similar amendments in the other place we shall, in some way, have succeeded. That is not a party point. I believe that there is unease among certain sections of the Conservative party. That unease may not be the same as the unease that we feel, but some Conservative Members are uneasy about the fact that if the Bill is unamended, it will give the Secretary of State draconian powers to impose conditions, and will enable him to do without any negotiating machinery. That is why we have tabled the amendments. We wish to enable some sort of negotiations to take place.
Article 8 of the ILO convention is very short, and says:
The settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment shall be sought, as may be appropriate to national conditions, through negotiation"—
hon. Members should note the use of the word "negotiation"—
between the parties or through independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved.
Article 8 says that there does not have to be negotiation. We, of course, would like negotiation, but if we cannot have that, article 8 at least offers a way out. It talks about "mediation, conciliation and arbitration". The confidence of the parties involved must be maintained, and the machinery must be impartial.
But with respect to the Secretary of State, the Bill will not give teachers or their organisations any such confidence, because they will have no say about who is appointed to the advisory body. They will suspect that the whole business will be rigged, so that they will not only have no say but will be trodden on by the Government, just as they have been for the past five or six years.
I do not apologise for reading out another two articles, as they are important in that they might make the Government think again. The ILO convention on the right to organise and collective bargaining, convention No. 98, was ratified by the United Kingdom in June 1950. I do not know whether we are withdrawing from it, but I should like to read out two of its articles. I shall be brief, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) will pursue the subject at greater length later.
Articles 3 and 4 state:
Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding articles.


Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation"—
the reference is to voluntary negotiation, but the word "negotiation" is still there—
between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.
I could say a lot more, but it does not need saying. The four articles that I have read out are clear and succinct. The interpretation of them by any reasonable man in the street—

Ms. Clare Short: What about the women?

Dr. Marek: I apologise to my hon. Friend. In this House, the man includes the woman, and the woman includes the man.
Any reasonable man or woman in the street would think that clause 1 runs counter to the spirit of the ILO conventions, and perhaps to the letter of the law and to conventions that the United Kingdom has signed in times past. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say. I hope that he will answer some of our points honestly and that he will not do what some Ministers do, in shifting the argument sideways and producing statistics that do not meet the criticisms made.
I hope that he will not try to acquit himself like that, but that he will be honest and will tell us if some of our arguments have merit.

Mr. Nellist: I do not wish to truncate this important part of my hon. Friend's speech on the ILO conventions. However, it occurred to me that other international treaties or obligations might be abrogated by the clause, especially if it is not amended. I was thinking of the European social charter. Does my hon. Friend have any material on that, so that he can at least enlighten Opposition Members?

Dr. Marek: I do have some material, but I am sorry to say that it is not with me. Earlier, there must have been 14 or 15 Tory Members in the Chamber and only about six or seven Labour Members, but there are now so few Tory Members in the Chamber that a Labour Member has had to go and sit on their side in order to make up the numbers. I do not know whether that means that some Conservative Members are not interested in having a decent system of education. It is a great pity that so few Conservative Members should be present.
Amendment No. 2 is merely consequential, but amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 also appear on the Order Paper. The Secretary of State has no doubt read them and taken them into consideration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, those amendments would not introduce a form of negotiation, but they might open the way for that.
Amendment No. 8 states:
'(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall come into effect until after such period of consultation as appears to him to be reasonable following publication of proposals in the form of a White Paper as to arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'.
Proposals for the remuneration of teachers could no doubt be agreed between the professional organisations concerned, and between the local education authorities. I know the Government's complexion, so I am not asking

at this stage for free negotiations between the different parties. However, amendment No. 8 would allow an element of negotiation or at least, perhaps, consultation so that the professional organisations are heard and partake in any decisions.
If the Secretary of State does not like that amendment, there is always amendment No. 9.

Mr. Caborn: That is a good one.

Dr. Marek: I agree with my hon. Friend, it is a good one. It states:
(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall come into effect after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State, and no such Order shall be made until after the coming into effect of an agreement with respect to the remuneration of school teachers (and such other matters as the parties to that agreement may determine) agreed between organisations representing school teachers and their employers.'.
I prefer that amendment. It may be that the Secretary of State prefers the previous amendment. I would be happy with the previous amendment if he thinks that amendment No. 9 goes too far.
If the Secretary of State does not like those two amendments, there is amendment No. 10.

Mr. Fatchett: Will my hon. Friend be negotiating with the Secretary of State?

Dr. Marek: I am hoping to concentrate his mind on this matter. There is a serious point here. We have had letters and a lobby this afternoon and Labour Members have had much comment from their constituents and have received many letters about the state of our schools and the education system.
Amendment No. 10 states:
No such Order shall come into effect until after the publication of a report by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service as to arrangements for the remuneration of teachers.'.
I will not say too much about that, because we can discuss it with the next set of amendments. It is an important amendment. Let us see what ACAS has to say about it. ACAS is a body that I think has earned the respect of employees and employers. I hope that Conservative Members will agree with that. It is an extremely good body. Why not let it do something about this matter? I would be prepared to go so far as to let the Secretary of State give ACAS the terms of reference, but let ACAS see what it can produce in order to bring about an acceptable solution between the employers in one corner, the employees' organisations in the other and the Government in a third corner.
If the Secretary of State does not like amendment No. 10, there is amendment No. 11. It was tabled, again, by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. It states:
no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by a Parliamentary tribunal of inquiry appointed to examine and report on arrangements for determining the remuneration of teachers.'.
I would need to be persuaded that that would be the best way forward. I do not know whether parliamentary tribunals of inquiry would come up with the beef at the end of the day. I would prefer the ACAS solution or amendment No. 9. We do not know what is in the Secretary of State's mind. It may be that he would like amendment No. 11 so that he could have a quick, short, sharp parliamentary tribunal of inquiry which could produce a solution.
If the Secretary of State does not like that, there is amendment No. 12. It contains another suggestion. I shall not read it all, so that I do not detain the House too long. It states:
no such Order shall come into effect before the conclusion of consultation with associations of local education authorities, such organisations representing school teachers as appear to him to be concerned, and any local education authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, and the laying before Parliament of a report of the results of such consultation.'.
That in no way seeks to tie the Secretary of State's hands, it says that he can consult those whom he thinks are interested parties. Therefore, he can decide with whom he consults. It does not dictate to him in any way whatsover. Why can he not do that? He can consult and then he would have to lay before Parliament a report of the results of that consultation.
I am not very keen on amendment No. 12. It is better to have amendment No. 12 than no amendment at all, but I would prefer some of the earlier amendments.

Ms. Clare Short: Amendment No. 9.

Dr. Marek: Yes, I think that Opposition Members consider amendment No. 9 to be the best so far.
If the Secretary of State does not like any of those amendments, there is amendment No. 13.—[Interruption.] It is to clause 1. Again, I shall not read it all. It makes another suggestion as to what the Secretary of State could do. It states:
no such Order shall come into effect until after the laying before Parliament of a report by an independent inquiry into arrangements for determining the future remuneration of teachers whose members shall be appointed in equal proportions by the Secretary of State, organisations representing school teachers and associations of local education authorities.
I do not think that the Secretary of State can plead ignorance about what to do, because there are plenty of amendments to choose from. I am not particularly keen on amendment No. 13. It would be a little bit stilted and could produce an ungainly sequence of events. Having said that, I would rather have amendment No. 13 than no amendment at all. My preference is still for amendment No. 9. I expect that the Secretary of State would not want that one, as I recommend amendment No. 10. That is probably the professional amendment that he could go for in his capacity.
If he does not like amendment No. 13, there is amendment No. 14. It is slightly different. Whatever the Secretary of State does, an order should be laid before the House and approved by resolution of both Houses. I do not mind whether he does that, but he should do something along the lines of one of the amendments I have mentioned.
There are many other amendments in the sequence that we are discussing. Amendment No. 17 is very clear to hon. Members who have read it. It states:
leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert ', together with conditions of employment, by measures which encourage and promote the full development and realisation of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between local education authorities and teachers' unions and associations, or by such other methods as will allow representatives of such unions, associations and local authorities to participate in the determination of these matters.'.
It is an extremely important amendment. The Secretary of State must do something that would allow professional teacher organisations and LEAs to be able to negotiate.
We must remember that at the end of the day it is the local authorities that provide most of the money in the teachers' pay bill, not the Government. It used to be different, but Government policies, such as they are, change. It is now the LEAs that pay the most. If we could change the local government system so that if LEAs want to pay over and above the odds they have to find the money from their own rate income, it would get rid of many problems. I recommend amendment No. 17 to the House. It is an eminently suitable amendment and I hope that it is passed.
Amendment Nos. 18 and 19 are basically in the same tenor. Amendment No. 18 states:
no such provisions shall have the effect of altering the terms of any agreement as to remuneration or other matters between employers and organisations representing teachers agreed before the passage of this Act.'.
That would be sensible, because the Bill will already do a lot of damage and there is no point rubbing salt into the wounds by retrospectively altering terms and conditions. Teachers do not know what the Secretary of State will do. The Bill gives him so many overriding and arbitrary powers that he can do almost anything. Clearly an amendment along the lines of No. 18 is very necessary. I hope that we will have a separate vote on that amendment as it is one of the most important amendments before us.
Amendment No. 19 states:
line 11, leave paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 'in the cases of school teachers and teachers in further education, by provisions agreed between, or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'.
I shall not say any more about that. It is a simple matter of trying to get agreement, consultation, participation and negotiation between the different parties. That is the only way that we will make progress in a civilised society. We ought to have moved from the slave state where one has people who dictate to others. We have moved on, I hope, at least in Europe, from the age of dictatorship. That was 40 years ago, not so long ago, but we should have moved on. We should move on now from the age of dictatorial Secretaries of State for Education and Science to having Secretaries of State for Education and Science who see their role as that of mediators, to guide, persuade and educate and to get the agreement, grudging or not, and voluntary co-operation of the parties involved. Unfortunately, we do not have that.
Amendment No. 20, which is very short, is in the same vein and I commend it to the House. No doubt my hon. Friends will wish to comment on that important amendment in their contributions. I shall also not comment on amendment No. 22, which is on similar lines.
If the Secretary of State does not like any of the amendments, there is new clause 7 or new clause 8, which is quite comprehensive. New clause 7 states:
'Subject to the further provisions of this Act the remuneration and conditions of employment of teachers shall be in accordance with provisions agreed between or settled in a manner agreed between teachers and their employers.'.
That is a straightforward statement of what we all want, but although it is only three lines it is probably too big for the Secretary of State to accept. Nevertheless, he should at least accept the principle and put down a properly drafted amendment giving reality to that principle at a later stage.
New clause 8, which I shall not read out, offers another possibility if the Secretary of State does not like any of the amendments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for tabling so many amendments and


offering the Secretary of State so many possibilities. There is certainly plenty of material in new clause 8 that the Secretary of State could usefully consider. I am sure that he has read it—it would be rude to suggest that he has not—and I shall be interested to hear his views.
I have dealt at some length with the arguments against this draconian Bill. I have been a Member of Parliament for only three and a half years or so—

Ms. Clare Short: It seems like a lifetime.

Dr. Marek: —and I have never seen a Bill with such arbitrary and draconian powers. It might almost be described as Stalinist. The Secretary of State cannot wish to go down in history as one who acted like a dictator from the middle years of this century or a slave owner from an earlier stage in the development of civilisation. He ought to want to be remembered as the person who brought peace to the teaching profession, improved standards of education, raised the morale of teaching staff and improved the quality of equipment for our children, but so far I have heard nothing to suggest that that is his wish. What is wrong? Can he not think on his own rather than taking the Prime Minister's advise all the time? Will he not think of the children and of the teachers who want to serve those children and accept at least one of the amendments?

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I shall be brief. I do not intend to emulate the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) who spoke for about an hour and a half.
Conservative Members have full confidence in the Secretary of State and in the Bill. We also have full confidence in the Secretary of State and in the Bill. We also have full confidence in the parents and in the children who will be going to school to be taught by teachers who will be better paid and have better promotion prospects, greater incentives and a genuine career structure, which the hon. Members for Wrexham and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) seem to want to knock.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: No. I have not been surprised by the cant and complaints from the Opposition—

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Sir Paul. You will recall that a number of points of order were raised at the beginning of the Committee. The Leader of the House said that there had been difficulties at the printers so that the amendments were not available for members of the Committee until 11.30 am today. I should be most grateful if you would make inquiries to see what the printing situation is tonight. Hon. Members will clearly be anxious to have copies of Hansard available at the correct hour tomorrow morning so that everyone can read the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). We shall also require further copies of amendments that have not been debated by them. Perhaps you could intervene to brief us on the printing situation, as it is clearly a matter of great concern to the Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Sir Paul Dean): The hon. Gentleman answered his first point when he said that the Leader of the House had dealt with the position regarding the amendments which are available. I am sure that the Official Report will do its very best to keep up with our proceedings. I cannot add to that.

Mr. Bruinvels: The hon. Member for Durham, North and his hon. Friends have introduced the Opposition

amendments, none of which I or, I believe, any of my hon. Friends support. Nevertheless, it is the right of the Opposition to bring forward amendments for debate.
What depresses me is the negative, defeatist way in which they have done so. Their attitude mirrors that of the NUS—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] The National Union of Students has also always used bully-boy tactics. The National Union of Teachers, for which the Opposition seem to be the mouthpiece, wants peace on its own terms rather than on terms that will help the majority of teachers. The NUT has only 216,000 members while the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has 122,000 and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association has 118,000, so the NUT no longer represents all the teachers.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: After the events in Nottingham and Coventry, it is clear that all the amendments before us have been tabled in conjunction with the NUT in a bloody-minded attempt to prevent any kind of agreement being reached. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) implied earlier , it is obviously a campaign to gain electoral advantage. They will not win. In all the leaflets that, unfortunately, have been quoted by the hon. Member for Wrexham including one called "The Right to Negotiate", there was not one reference to the children. That is what annoys me most.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Fisher, the Minister for Education; but Mr. Fisher immediately went on to say that we all want peace in our schools. Leaving out that reference does not fool me because the attitude of the NUT is not likely to lead to peace. I want our schools to be free of union battles on school ground. While Labour Members continue their disruptive campaign, there will be nothing but continued unrest. Our children are suffering.
There have been negotiations at ACAS, but it has not been helpful to us. The Government put forward five allowances, yet ACAS put forward only two. The great concern is that ACAS could not formulate the important salary structure that we need with adequate financial incentives for all teachers to ensure that each teacher has genuine promotion prospects. There is nothing wrong with that and we should be encouraging that. Therefore, the problems are to be blamed totally on the teachers' unions and the local authority employers. The negotiations have taken two years, during which there has been recurrent disruption in the classrooms.
9 pm
ACAS came in because a Burnham committee agreement could not be reached because the NUT held the majority on the committee. I am glad that Opposition Members accept that Burnham has broken down, although if they did not like it, why did they not put forward an alternative? A statutory body is required, and my right hon. Friend will introduce that. We want the work of ACAS to be looked at again. We want to be sure that any extra spending put forward is the result of careful thought.
As I said on Monday, the most important thing is that £600 million is on the table. If the hon. Member for Durham genuinely cares about a peaceful solution, he should encourage and support the Government's proposal. There would then be no need for these


amendments. Indeed, I hope that there will be no need for the Bill. Certainly, the second largest teachers' union—the NAS/UWT—has been very unhelpful in its approach. My right hon. Friend's package gives a genuine long-term pay structure which guarantees adequate differentials and a clear definition of professional duties.
The Labour party calls for free collective bargaining, but on whose terms? We all believe in free collective bargaining, but that would not happen because the NUT would try to dominate and we would not achieve as good a settlement as is now on the table, and which the parents in my Leicester, East constituency totally support. The Opposition are working the whole time with the employers deliberately attempting to undermine the Government's proposals. They never think about the children. I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Durham, North if he can tell me exactly how and in which way his negotiations with the employers' organisations took place and to what purpose. I know that the last time that he was challenged on that point he left the Chamber. It is a worrying matter.
We need a speedy solution, but that will come about only with the co-operation of the Opposition. It is not simply a question of passing the Bill—all Governments depend on good co-operation from Oppositions. I would have thought that the time was right for the Opposition to withdraw their amendments. They must realise that there is no point in altering the terms—it will not work, because they no longer have the total support of the teachers' unions. We know the ACAS result and the position of parents. Letters have come from parents who want a speedy settlement.
I have had only two letters from teachers in my constituency during the whole of the dispute, which shows that the majority of teachers in my constituency are happy with the terms on the table. They would be surprised to hear that the Opposition are trying to keep the House up throughout the night, trying to put forward a number of amendments that will result in the opposite to what Conservative Members want, which is peace and the guarantee that our children will be better taught and our teachers offered better promotion prospects.
As for new clauses 7 and 8, I do not trust the unions to bring forward a genuine negotiated settlement which the Government can afford, which teachers genuinely want and which will guarantee the promotion prospects that we want. It is possible for unions to tell us what to do. That was the order of the day when Labour was in power. The headline, "Turning the Clock Back" on the NUT document describes precisely what will happen if we fail to pass the Bill.
We need the Bill so quickly because Burnham did not work. We have here the legislative details necessary to introduce a new negotiating structure. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to set teachers' pay and conditions of service by regulation. These are wrecking amendments which will do nothing but harm to children.

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has said that these are wrecking amendments. Is that not a reflection on the Chair?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member was intending to reflect on the Chair and I am sure that he might wish to rephrase his remarks so that it is quite clear that there was no such reflection.

Mr. Bruinvels: There is no question of my making any such allegation. It is the speeches of Opposition Members which are wrecking the Bill.
The Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 needs to be repealed, and the interim advisory committee should be put in place immediately so that we can have peace in our schools again. It is a sad reflection on society that, for political advantage, certain elements are deliberately undermining the professional attitude of teachers and their special relationship with children. Such a cheap political advantage will not be acceptable to the vast majority of parents.
The level of pay is clearly determined by the Bill, and it provides a proper salary structure for all teachers. The Bill's temporary nature has been missed completely. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) certainly missed it. The Bill repeals the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and makes temporary provision with respect to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers, and it extends only to England and Wales. It is clearly temporary and has been introduced because of the callous approach of Opposition Members. [Laughter.] The truth always hurts. The Opposition have failed to encourage a satisfactory settlement. Under the Government's proposals, 50 per cent. of all teachers will be eligible for promotion and incentives. That must be the best way forward.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the Opposition are aware that, at the moment, there are 105,000 promotion posts, that under Labour's proposals there would only be 85,000 and that, under ours, there would be 140,000. Our proposals provide incentives for people who will be heads of department and for good classroom teachers who want to remain classroom teachers.

Mr. Bruinvels: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposals advanced by the employers and the unions will enable only 80,000 teachers to receive promotion.

Mr. Frank Cook: rose—

Mr. Bruinvels: Under our proposals, 140,000 teachers will be eligible for promotion. That will end two years of misery and guarantee peace in classrooms. Moreover, our proposals will encourage career development, particularly in primary schools which the NUT proposals leave out altogether. Over 20 months, teachers will get a 25 per cent. salary rise, which is £600 million extra, in incentives to ensure that our children will be properly taught, to reward the good classroom teacher, the teachers who are prepared to take on extra responsibility, those who have skills and qualifications that are in short supply and those who move into jobs in particularly difficult schools.
There has been criticism of the idea that there should be some special arrangement for those schools in difficult areas. I do not know why the NUT is opposed to this. It is terribly important to get the better—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now anticipating a later amendment. While a wide-ranging debate is in order on this group of amendments, that point will be covered later.

Mr. Bruinvels: My main purpose was to look at the main negotiating machinery and to show how the Bill, particularly clause 1, which will abolish the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1969, will guarantee important incentive posts to secure the jobs of professional teachers and ensure peace in our schools. I bow to your guidance, Sir Paul.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Sir Paul. While you are kindly offering advice and guidance to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), will you remind him that this is the Committee stage of the Bill's proceedings, and that it is customary in Committee to give way to Opposition Members who wish to make points that are relevant to what is being said? This is not a Second Reading debate, and it is a abuse of the procedures of the House for the hon. Gentleman to act as he is. I should like your guidance, Sir Paul.

The Second Deputy Chairman: This is a matter for whichever Member has the Floor, whether we are in the House or in Committee, and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) appears not to wish to give way. Perhaps the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) will try again.

Mr. Fatchett: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul, I would not wish to challenge your judgment, but we run the House on the basis of a certain consensus and a set of conventions, and it is normal in Committee for hon. Members to give way to others who wish to make points and develop arguments. This is what we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has already given way to one of his hon. Friends and surely, as a matter of courtesy, he should also give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who has sat here through the debate and is keen to intervene on this point. You will have noticed, Sir Paul, that during the debate Labour Members have given way at all times at every request from the Conservative Benches. Surely, under the conventions of the House, it is necessary for Conservative Members to give way now.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is being extremely economical with the truth. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) was not here for the major part of the debate. He has only just come in.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am sure that the Committee knows that it is a matter for the Member who has the Floor to decide whether he gives way.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. Will you confirm that there is no qualifying period for an hon. Member to attend the Committee before he is allowed to speak, intervene or make any other contribution?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think hon. Members are seeking to make debating points rather than points of order for the Chair.

Mr. Bruinvels: I was not giving way, because I have been sitting in the Chamber since 2.30, and many Labour Members have been here for only a short time. If the debate were held in the quietness in which it should be held, because it is a serious matter, my attitude to giving way would be different. This is an important debate. We are talking about the future of our schools and we are not here to make cheap, party political points.
As I come to the end of my contribution, Sir Paul, it is only right that I should place on record the fact that the amendment and the negotiating machinery proposed by the hon. Member for Durham, North will not help the Bill. I want peace in our schools. I hope that one day the Opposition will also aspire to that aim and contribute to what I would call a concordat to achieve the best possible deal. I believe that the best possible deal has arrived with this Bill.
It is important that we get the maximum money possible into the schools as quickly as possible to ensure that the unions curb their industrial disputes and that teachers are properly promoted, better paid and have the best possible promotion prospects. We must ensure that the children are not forgotten and that there is peace in our schools. We must ensure that children will no longer be a political football to be used by the Opposition.

Mr. Nellist: It is incredible that any Tory Member of Parliament, and especially the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), can assert that he is not here to make cheap party political comments. I counted nearly 23 such comments in the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I shall refer to two of them. At one point, the hon. Gentleman blamed the teachers for the deterioration of their pay and conditions. He said that it was all their fault. Precisely the opposite is the case.
The Government have turned education into a lottery, and schools in the midlands and other parts of the country have to hold raffles and collections for the most elementary necessities, such as books, before they can begin to think about transport and out-of-school activities, which some Tory Members describe as luxuries. The Government are responsible for driving education into that position. The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that he believed in free collective bargaining, yet tonight he is opposing amendments and supporting a clause which is designed to remove the very essence of free collective bargaining from the relationship between the teachers unions and the employers.
If the clause had tried to emulate for the majority of children in the state sector the level of services and the teacher-pupil ratio that exists in Eton—a school attended by many Tory MPs, where the ratio is eight children per teacher—perhaps we could have had a serious debate. There might have been "bipartisan agreement" to bring such a measure forward. If the Bill had been designed to control not the salaries of teachers, but those of the spivs in the City who earn £500 an hour, or £8 a minute, to rook people of their livelihoods through speculation and share swindles, there could have been a "measure of agreement" in the Chamber on a means to control such salaries.
The clause specifically attacks workers in some of the most arduous and demanding occupations in Britain today. A friend of mine who is a teacher once described teaching a class of 25 or so as education. He described teaching a class of 35 to 40 as crowd control because there is no time to develop the potential of each and every child in a class of that size.
Those are the problems that should have been addressed by the Bill. Instead, the Bill removes the control of negotiations on conditions and wages from the hands of joint negotiating machinery and puts it into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Bill will do nothing to


motivate children in Coventry or elsewhere, who face a difficult enough position already. Although it is the teachers' job to motivate the youngsters, they know that a goodly proportion of them are being motivated for the dole queue.
That point was perhaps most graphically illustrated in Today, a newspaper from which I do not particularly like to quote, given its record over the past few weeks and its comments on the Labour party and the Labour movement. During the Knowsley, North by-election, a reporter from Today spoke to a group of 10-year-olds and was shocked to hear from one that he saw no reason whatsoever why he should carry on working to pass examinations purely to increase the intellectual level of dole queue chat. Any Government who reduce the aspirations of youth to that level of cynicism ought to be condemned for their hypocrisy.
Instead of addressing the problem of cynical youth, unfortunately we have to deal with the attempt by the Secretary of State to remove the right to negotiate pay and conditions. That right has been guaranteed, as hon. Members have said, for 67 years by previous legislation. The clause will remove that right and allow the Secretary of State to appoint an advisory committee. That is not surprising. Even during my short term as a Member of Parliament I have seen moves in that direction. The Secretary of State for Social Services appoints 3,000 members of family practitioner committees as well as those who run the district and other health authorities within the Health Service. The Prime Minister has the power of patronage to appoint thousands of people, such as bishops and the heads of the BBC. The Lord Chancellor has within his patronage tens of thousands of various judicial appointments. We are not surprised that the essence of clause 1 is that the Secretary of State for Education and Science wants to get in on the act and have his own power and patronage in appointing new committees.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend could also refer to the residuary bodies in local government. They take away democratic rights. The members are also appointed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Nellist: I am cautious about how far I can stray from this group of amendments. For many months, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Mr. Fatchett) and I served together on many evenings such as this, stretching into many mornings such as tomorrow, considering the local government legislation which abolished the GLC and metropolitan councils.
The clause is not, as was said by one or two Tory Members, about ending the teachers' dispute which has continued for the past two years. That would require far more resources than the Secretary of State has so far been able to release. It is about applying to the education service in 1987 the draconian measures that were taken against the workers of GCHQ a couple of years ago. Why does the Secretary of State believe that all members of the NUT are spies and, therefore, should be treated in the same way as he attempted to treat the workers of GCHQ? Not all of them went to Cambridge. Not all of them went to the same university as those who have have been picked up for taking part in that side occupation, most of whom, I suspect, are card-carrying members or sympathisers of the Tory party, anyway. The attack on GCHQ has been

emulated in education because the Secretary of State has been unable to convince the majority of teachers of the arguments that he has put forward to end the dispute.
I notice that there has been a recent ballot of teachers in Scotland. Some 89 per cent. of teachers took part, 84 per cent. of whom rejected the current deal on offer. From discussions today with representatives of the Coventry branch of the National Union of Teachers, I suspect Coventry will emulate those precentages in turnout and rejection in the ballot this week. The Secretary of State, unable to convince the majority of teachers of his arguments, intends, through this clause, to abolish their right of negotiations, just as he did with the GLC and metropolitan authorities. When the Secretary of State was an Environment Minister, he restricted the democratic right of election to those local govenment bodies.
Clause 1 abolishes the existing machinery contained in the remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. It gives powers to the Secretary of State to impose any pay structure and conditions of service that he likes on teachers in England and Wales. Later amendments and clauses will deal with the advisory body. This clause is the response of the Secretary of State to his inability to force agreement from teachers.
It is important to ask why the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to gain such agreement. Everything on offer to the teachers will worsen their conditions of service and will fail to maintain their existing standard of living. The legislation does nothing to re-establish the Houghton parity that existed in the early 1970s. To achieve that, in today's language, a teacher at the top of scale 1 would need to earn £16,000 a year. The Nottingham agreement, which is under discussion, would mean that a scale 1 teacher would not reach an income of £15,000 until 1996. Many people, including some who are personal acquaintances of mine, have been teachers for many years but still take home only £100 at the end of their demanding working week. It will be 10 years before they are close to where they should be this year in terms of parity with Houghton. They are chucking that agreement out of the window. The Secretary of State has not convinced them. He knows the background to the situation, so he is trying, from above, arbitrarily to impose these provisions.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bring back Houghton in real terms. A graph of the number of teachers leaving the profession in the past 20 years shows that the problem occurs when teachers, especially males, are between 26 and 28, when they are beginning to acquire family responsibilities. It is important to give the money not just to those who are starting in the profession—they have the least responsibility—but to those who are beginning to acquire more responsibility. My right hon. Friend's proposals will provide incentives to those 26 to 28-year-olds at the time when they need them most, to keep them in the profession where they are of most value and when they have become nicely accustomed to the job. We do not want to lose them then.

Mr. Nellist: The hon. Lady began by saying that the deal of the Secretary of State restores real levels in the Houghton pay structure, which it does not. It certainly does not do so for the whole teaching profession, except over a considerable period. That is why those at the


bottom of the scale are most likely to be the ones who most strongly reject the offer on the table. The hon. Lady is at liberty to develop her point further. I do not regard the deal as a basis for adequately rewarding young teachers, whether single or married, in an arduous profession.
The deal on offer is a productivity deal. It gives, for example, the head teachers in schools more power to rewrite job descriptions annually, or more frequently if required. It links appraisal to pay—a link that teachers have resisted for years. They have not been unwilling to discuss appraisal, but they do not want it in the same package as the restoration of pay levels. The appraisal provision gives authorities the power to withhold a pay rise for a year if the previous year's record of service was unsatisfactory. It is a pity that there are not similar pay arrangements for Tory Members of Parliament. We could judge them by unemployment. Their pay levels would have declined savagely in the past seven years as unemployment has risen.
I do not have time to develop other aspects, such as the attempted clawbacks on cover and supply and the increase in the working year. In summary, set against an average 8 per cent. increase in salaries, and a 10 per cent. increase, on a contractual basis, of the hours that teachers are expected to work, the offer gives a pay cut. I do not condemn any teachers who reject such an offer. Having failed to convince teachers of the merits of the argument, the Secretary of State is attempting arbitrary imposition from above. He is not willing to concede the necessary £1,700 flat rate increase for 1986–87 which will be necessary to satisfy teachers' claims. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman follows in the footsteps of the former Secretary of State for Transport and the present chairman of the Tory party in seeking, in clause 1, effectively to fragment, neuter and castrate the teachers trade unions.
The Secretary of State does not want active and capable trade unions which are competent and able to defend the interests of their members. The Bill is also an indicator of the failure of the economic system which the Secretary of State defends. The Government cannot give reasonable pay and conditions to a large percentage of the public service work force and therefore fear the continuation of the defence of those workers by their trade unions. Therefore, clause 1 attacks the role of the trade unions.
9.30 pm
The Secretary of State will not succeed. He is already not succeeding and the Bill is only days old. The Bill is drawing the teaching unions together again, when during the past three or four weeks they were perhaps divided on tactics and on which form of deal to accept. It is escalating the radicalisation of the rank and file in ordinary teachers associations throughout the country. If, during the next two weeks, there was a political fund ballot in the teaching unions, as there has been in 40 unions under the Trade Union Act 1984, I would not put money on which way that ballot would go.
It is worth making one small point about the radicalisation and the effect of such a draconian measure on the entire profession and on the youths and students in education. Twenty-two miles is not that great a distance for youth in Britain not to be aware of the struggle that has been going on during the past seven or 10 days against a Tory Government across the water who attempted to introduce parallel draconian measures against the university sector in France.
I do not discount the fact that many lessons may be learnt by people in the profession and by the youths and children who are studying or being taught. Lessons will be rubbing off from the experience of the past seven or 10 days of the action of the ranked mass of students in France against the French Tory Government and their attempt to introduce new laws. The Government should be aware that if they continue down the road of attacking education, the Health Service and the welfare state in general, they run the risk of similar disaffection spreading among working-class people and youth in Britain.
The Government have been claiming that Burnham as a negotiating machinery is not working, but instead of having discussions to extend or change the existing machinery, the Secretary of State is rather like a child who has an argument in a playground—he is taking his ball home. He has decided that he will alter the rules of the game by eliminating that level of negotiation. He is attempting in two days of parliamentary time entirely to abolish the existing system of negotiation.
I do not necessarily complain about the short time that the Secretary of State is taking. I am not all that fussed—although I shall be here all night if he wishes to stay—by his taking only two days to try to shove this measure through Parliament, because in earlier incarnation, when he was a Minister at the Department of the Environment, we spent a few months together discussing the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
I learnt a lot from the Government and the Secretary of State, as he now is, from that Bill. I learnt, for example, what enabling legislation was all about from the last six sections of what is now the Local Government Act 1985. It means that the Secretary of State can come in with a two or three-line statement to establish a principle and follow it a few months later with an Order of some description to put flesh on what he intends to implement. It would be useful for a future Labour Government to consider, for example, the abolition of the House of Lords, or the sweeping necessary extension of public ownership in Britain, based on the enabling legislation clauses in the last quarter of the Local Government Act.
Similarly, I am not that fussed that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to get the Bill through in two days of parliamentary time, because I can envisage occasions under the next Labour Government when we can use the precedent of the speed at which the Secretary of State wishes to proceed today with this anti-working class measure to enact Socialist legislation—for example, on a national minimum wage, on shorter working hours, on lower retirement age or other measures to reduce unemployment or increase the living standards of working people.
I and many others believe that this clause paves the way for us to adopt the same sort of attitude to Conservative policies as the Government have towards the people whom we represent.
We must also watch carefully to see whether clause 1 will pave the way for attacks on other workers in the public service and in nationalised industries. In that I include doctors, nurses and other workers in the Health Service, the bin men, the social services and housing staff on local authorities, people in the ambulance service, the fire service and the other services which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham—[Interruption.] I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). The right


hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) is the one with 35 jobs. As far as I am aware, my hon. Friend has only one job—as a full-time Member of Parliament.
Will the people on his list and the short list that I have read out be the next to be attacked by the Government? Those workers should be supporting the teachers in their battle to defend their present system of free negotiations.

Mr. Greenway: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Is this speech not extremely wide of the amendment and out of order?

The Second Deputy Chairman: This is a very wide debate on a series of amendments dealing with consultation and procedures. As yet, I have heard nothing out of order.

Mr. Nellist: Thank you, Sir Paul. I shall leave a couple of points that I had planned to make and return to them later. It will be a long evening.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are at the top of the slippery slope. If we allow the teachers' negotiating rights to be swept away, who will be next in line? The precedent is being set by the most centralising Government this century.

Mr. Nellist: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only the hon. Members who are listening to the debate and the few people in the Galleries at either end of the Chamber, but those who read the report of the debate when it is published, probably on Friday morning, should take heed of my hon. Friend's point about a waiting list. It is rather like one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operettas. The Prime Minister "has a little list"—only it is a long list—of unions and public services which she wants to take on, using this Bill as a precedent. They include especially the public service workers whom my hon. Friend and I have tried to name.
The clause is an attack on the basic democratic right of free collective bargaining. As a worker and active trade unionist in British Leyland in the late 1970s, I opposed a similar attack when the Labour Government mistakenly took the road of an incomes policy. I am equally opposed to it today. The right of free collective bargaining, like the right to strike, the right to vote and every other right in what is supposed to be a democracy—in so far as it can be a democracy under a Tory Government in the late 1980s—has been won by the struggle of generations of trade unionists, stretching back at least over a century. For a Tory Government to abrogate one of those rights is an attack on a central feature of democracy.
I understand that the National Union of Teachers has lodged a formal complaint with the International Labour Organisation that the Bill breaches at least conventions 98 and 151, together with the others mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. It is a good idea to launch such a formal complaint and to draw attention to the fact that the Government are trying to abrogate their duties under the conventions, but they did the same a year ago with ILO convention 26 when, at a stroke, they decided to remove the right of all workers aged under 21 to a legal minimum wage. Britain was the first industrialised country to do that. I suspect that they will do that again with this Bill, and equally arbitrarily.
The trade unions, particularly their leaders, should draw attention to that abrogation, but they must also gear

up trade union members to oppose the Bill's implementation throughout Britain. The Government do not care about their international obligations. This is the Government who have been taken to the International Court of Justice in the Hague at least a dozen times for reneging on international conventions. This is the Government who rewarded the Commonwealth's stand, such as it was, on South Africa and sanctions by introducing visas for citizens of Commonwealth countries. This is not a Government who particularly worry about breaking international conventions if to do so assists in breaking the strength and cohesion of Britain's trade union movement.
I have no doubt that the Minister's advisers discussed the Bill and thought of it as a way of emasculating the teachers' organisations and putting them under the control of the Secretary of State. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the obverse of that coin. All the feeling of grievance and disillusion will grow if teachers' morale is not raised by a proper level of remuneration, and that will no longer be directed towards any form of semi-independent negotiating machinery. It will all be directed at the Secretary of State, because he will be seen as the person in charge. He will be the one who is saying, "The buck stops here." That is hardly a recipe, should he want it, for the depoliticisation of the teachers' dispute. It is the opposite.
The Bill, particularly clause 1, removes the basic democratic right to free collective bargaining. Instead, it substitutes direct control by the Secretary of State. In that sense clause 1 is an undemocratic and reactionary clause in an undemocratic and reactionary Bill. But then again, that is well in line with general Tory philosophy.
The Bill may well go through the House of Commons. I suspect that that will not be tonight or tomorrow morning, but, given the Government's 140 majority, it will go through, but its only success will be in radicalising and politicising more teachers, taking them away from any support that they, as individuals, may have given to the Tory party and its candidates at election time. In that sense, if what the Secretary of State intends by clause 1 is a solution to the teachers' dispute, it will be counterproductive. In the Lobby tonight I shall support the amendments put forward by the Opposition Front Bench and oppose the Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I regret that I have to raise a point of order at this stage when the Committee clearly wishes to move towards a vote on the amendment. However, I am concerned that the Committee has now been in session for over five hours and the Press Association reports that the Committee could well sit all night and well into tomorrow on amendments tabled by the Labour and alliance parties, yet during those five hours not one Member of the Social Democratic party has stayed in the Committee for more than a few minutes, and the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), apart from one brief intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asking how long he intended to speak, has made no contribution at all. The alliance Members have asked for the microphones to be shifted, and so on. Are we to hear from alliance Members during the debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows well that that is a matter for debate, not for the Chair.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I can only say that some false points of order are better than others and I very much echo what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has said as a point of debate rather than a point of order.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) rightly reminded the House that the last time that we were on a Committee together was when we considered the Bill that I took through to abolish the GLC and other metropolitan county councils. I remember him saying that we would get that Bill through the House of Commons but that we would never get it through the other place. I was also told by him that as soon as those councils were abolished, civilised life as we knew it would disappear in the cities. Those county councils have been abolished for nine months and no one has noticed that they have gone.

Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not be the policy of the Birmingham Labour party to bring back the West Midlands county council. It was glad to see it go.

Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not. He spoke for 20 minutes.

Mr. Nellist: Will the right hon. Gentleman please give way?

Mr. Baker: Very well.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Secretary of State accept that I never said in Committee—he can check this in Hansard—that he would never get it through the other place? Furthermore, I never predicted the right hon. Gentleman's apocalyptic scenario. However, I referred to the fact, when dealing with services such as transport, that the deregulation of buses and the abolition of the metropolitan county councils would lead to the severe rundown of transport services. The Secretary of State can in no way deny that there has been a rundown of those services.

Mr. Baker: I, too, refer the hon. Gentleman to Hansard. He made dreadful forecasts about what would happen if there were no metropolitan county councils, including the West Midlands county council.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made what could be described as a memorable speech. It consisted of reading the contents of my in-tray. I thought of writing a letter to him, but that would just encourage him. I thought, too, that he was getting into training to be the next general secretary of the Post Office Engineers' Union. The hon. Gentleman and I—I hope that this will not irrevocably damage his career in the Labour party—have occasionally played bridge together. Might I suggest that, if he could find another three to make up a four, he would find the next few hours very enjoyable—and so would we, if he were successful.
The hon. Gentleman referred thoroughly to the amendments. That, at least, was original in this debate. All of them have a common theme, as was admitted by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). In one way or another, all the amendments are dilatory and would delay the repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. Amendment No. 8 asks for a White Paper; amendment No. 9 says that nothing should happen until

there is an agreement; amendment No. 10 asks for a report from ACAS; amendment No. 11 asks for a parliamentary tribunal of inquiry report; amendment No. 13 asks for an independent inquiry.
The hon. Member for Durham, North rightly said that the object of these amendments is to delay progress on the Bill until certain things have happened. These amendments would create a plethora of delaying devices and would lead to indecision. We have heard a great deal about the new negotiating procedures involving the Secretary of State, but new clause 7 does not involve the Secretary of State: "All we want is an agreement between the trade unions and the employers." New clause 8, as I interpret it, transforms the interim advisory committee into an arbitration tribunal.
These amendments would cause delay. The Government believe that early action is needed if there is to be a sensible resolution of the problems in our schools. The Opposition seek to prevent such a resolution by placing all kinds of difficulties in the way of repeal of the 1965 Act. The amendments are not needed in order to provide for teachers' pay to continue until the existing arrangements are superseded by new provisions, as provided for in clause 1(2). I have made it clear to the House that I am willing to continue discussions with the local education authorities and the unions in the hope that a sensible result can be agreed. I told the House on Monday last that, if an accommodation can be reached within the financial framework that has already been announced, which provides for a proper careers structure for all teachers, I should be delighted to lay the necessary order before the House giving effect to that agreement.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I shall give way in a moment.
There is no need for these amendments. The Government will act quickly to give effect to an acceptable conclusion. One union has asked to see me this Friday and another union has asked to see me next week. The Government will act quickly to establish the interim advisory committee that is so necessary if we are to avoid a repetition of this damaging and unnecessary dispute.
Several of my hon. Friends referred to the collapse of the Burnham negotiating committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) referred to the inevitable consequences, following the breakdown of a system that is inherently unstable. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) talked of Burnham blunted with abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) urged me to act in the interests of the children, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels).

Ms. Clare Short: I hope that the Secretary of State will refer to the ILO convention. I should be interested to hear what his legal advice is on whether the Bill breaches the convention, and if so, the position in which the Government have put themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), I was on the Committee on the Wages Bill. The Government had to resile from a convention before they could introduce that Bill. Why is that not so in this case?

Mr. Baker: I do not accept that we shall be breaking the ILO convention. It provides that representatives of


public employees shall participate in the determination of terms and conditions of employment. That does not have to be by direct negotiation. The teachers' unions will continue to participate, and I shall come to that. They will submit evidence and representations to the advisory committee, and I shall consult them before making any order.
I should like to give the history of Burnham and its collapse. It is a sorry chapter. This episode started in 1981 when there was an agreement in Burnham to set out on the road—it was hoped to be a shorter road than it has turned out to be—to reform the salary structure. There was little progress until 1984, when my predecessor said that if there was an affordable, acceptable and negotiable package, he would take it to the Cabinet. In November 1984, the employers outlined a package linking pay and duties. That was progress, and I recognise that, in that pay and conditions were being debated and discussed for the first time, because under the 1965 Act there were two separate negotiating discussion groups.
In the next month, December 1984, the NUT walked out of the talks. After the local election, results in the spring of 1985, when control of the employers' side passed to Labour, and Labour tore up the concordat—

Mr. Radice: Backed by the Tories.

Mr. Baker: The tearing up of that concordat changed the balance fundamentally. I have a copy of the concordat, which runs to only one page. It operated for the better part of 20 years and ensured that the Secretary of State had not only a number of votes in the negotiations but an effective veto over the amount of money that was available. That was torn up.
Following that, in August last year my predecessor announced that he would make £1·25 billion available over four years. There nearly was a deal on that basis. In September 1985 the employers put forward an offer consistent with that, but the teachers turned it down in 20 minutes. In January this year, in order to try to resolve the problem, some of the parties agreed to call in ACAS, and then the ACAS negotiations started. Alas, that was not accompanied by the end of all trouble and disruption in our schools. There has been intermittent trouble all through this year and it has continued in some of our towns and cities. I regret that.

Mr. Radice: The right hon. Gentleman is making a good case for reforming Burnham, with which we agree. However, neither on Second Reading nor at any stage of the debate has he made the case for abolishing collective bargaining, as is done in the Bill. Is the right hon. Gentleman in favour of collective bargaining? Does he think that it should be restored after 1990?

Mr. Baker: I have said that I am in favour of collective bargaining, provided that all the parties are involved in it and, in a matter of such importance to the general economy, the Government of the day have some sort of control over the total amount involved. I am not asking for anything that has not been asked for by my Labour predecessors. I have quoted in the House before the words of Lord Stewart in the debates that set up Burnham:
I doubt whether any Government in any set of circumstances could put itself in a position where it could

hand over the power on the global sum to someone other than itself."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B;1 December 1964, c. 20.]
The whole idea of the Burnham committee was that, after the global sum had been determined by Government, the various negotiations would deal with the details. The hon. Gentleman has argued for a joint negotiating council, but that would be, in effect, a continuation of the Burnham procedure.

Mr. Radice: No, it would not be.

Mr. Baker: Paragraph 7.1 of the ACAS agreement refers to setting up a joint negotiating council and paragraph 7.4 states that the parties would like to discuss the Secretary of State's role with him. As I have made clear, the Secretary of State's role is central to the resolution of these matters. It seems as though my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made his speech yesterday, it was such a long time ago, but as he said, there was precious little bargaining in the Burnham committees, because until this year the NUT outnumbered all the other unions. In effect, it represented the teachers. That cannot be right. It dominated the other unions, and that does not strike me as being very free or collective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Mr. Moynihan) pointed out that some of the unions and some of the employers wish to impose their proposals on me. We do not believe that any continuation of the existing system, with joint negotiations with employers and the unions, and using the procedures of the past five to 20 years, could be an effective replacement. Consequently, we recommend an interim advisory committee. I should stress the interim nature of our proposals. We believe that such a committee would provide a better and fairer chance of a solution.
Several hon. Members have asked how the unions would be involved. Both they and the local education authorities would have the clear right to make representations to the committee. Obviously, they would exercise that right. They may do it conjointly, having first negotiated a joint position. After the interim advisory committee has made its recommendations, I am empowered, and indeed obliged, by the Bill to consult the unions and local education authorities. After that, the House will be asked to support or reject the proposals that I put forward in the form of a statutory instrument. I believe that there are checks and balances in that.
As several hon. Members have said, the unions are also strong. They will be able to organise and they will not be pushed over by this process. They will still be able to advice their members to accept, or to take such action as they think necessary. Consequently, I strongly commend the major proposals contained in the Bill. I believe that they are a vast improvement on what is available now, and that the House should be prepared to accept them as a way forward towards resolving a dispute and negotiating procedure that has failed for more than five years to produce a resolution.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the House if we conclude the debate by 10 pm.
The central point is that the Secretary of State has not said whether he believes in collective bargaining. He has ducked that question. The answer must be that he does not believe in it, because if he believed in it, he could have used


the time on Monday when the Bill had its Second Reading, and could have used the time today, and probably tomorrow, to meet the unions and the local authority representatives. In that time, any Secretary of State worth his salt could have produced a negotiated settlement, especially as the parties are now so close together. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore made it clear that he does not believe in collective bargaining and is determined to remove that right.
Consequently, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to vote in favour of amendment No. 2. At a later stage, I hope that we shall also be able to vote on new clause 8.

Mr. Harry Cohen: rose—

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Cohen: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Sir Paul.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I will take a point of order at this stage only if it is to do with the conduct of the Division.

Mr. Cohen: (seated and covered): As you are aware, Sir Paul, I was on my feet about to speak in the debate. We are in Committee, so all hon. Members can speak more than once. I have not spoken at all, despite the fact that the two Front Bench spokemen have wound up.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point. I saw no hon. Member rise when the Secretary of State sat down, so I put the Question.

Mr. Cohen: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I rose after the Secretary of State, as there was a point to which I wished to reply, and I rose after my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) had sat down. In those circumstances, I should be given an opportunity to speak and there should not be a Division without a closure motion.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 173, Noes 228.

Division no.25]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Alton, David
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Anderson, Donald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clarke, Thomas


Ashdown, Paddy
Clay, Robert


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clelland, David Gordon


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Guy
Conlan, Bernard


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Beith, A. J.
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Craigen, J. M.


Bidwell, Sydney
Crowther, Stan


Blair, Anthony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bruce, Malcolm
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)





Fatchett, Derek
Mikardo, Ian


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Fisher, Mark
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Nellist, David


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Brien, William


Freud, Clement
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, W. E.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Godman, Dr Norman
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Park, George


Gould, Bryan
Parry, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Penhaligon, David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Raynsford, Nick


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hoyle, Douglas
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rooker, J. W.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rowlands, Ted


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Kennedy, Charles
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lambie, David
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Spearing, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Straw, Jack


McGuire, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McKelvey, William
Tinn, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


Maclennan, Robert
Wallace, James


McNamara, Kevin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McTaggart, Robert
Wareing, Robert


Madden, Max
Welsh, Michael


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martin, Michael



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. Don Dixon and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. James Hamilton.


Michie, William





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, John


Alexander, Richard
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Ancram, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter


Ashby, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baldry, Tony
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bright, Graham


Batiste, Spencer
Brinton, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Bendall, Vivian
Browne, John


Benyon, William
Bruinvels, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Bulmer, Esmond






Burt, Alistair
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Howard, Michael


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cash, William
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Conway, Derek
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Corrie, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Critchley, Julian
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Crouch, David
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knox, David


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Dicks, Terry
Latham, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lawler, Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dover, Den
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Dunn, Robert
Lightbown, David


Durant, Tony
Lilley, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lord, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas


Favell, Anthony
McCrindle, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Fletcher, Alexander
Macfarlane, Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, David John


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Forth, Eric
McQuarrie, Albert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Major, John


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Galley, Roy
Marlow, Antony


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Merchant, Piers


Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gow, Ian
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Greenway, Harry
Miscampbell, Norman


Gregory, Conal
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grist, Ian
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mudd, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Norris, Steven


Harvey, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Osborn, Sir John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Ottaway, Richard


Hayes, J.
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Heddle, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Henderson, Barry
Pattie, Geoffrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hickmet, Richard
Pollock, Alexander


Hicks, Robert
Porter, Barry


Hill, James
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Powley, John


Hirst, Michael
Price, Sir David


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Holt, Richard
Raffan, Keith





Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thurnham, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rowe, Andrew
Watson, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitfield, John


Silvester, Fred
Wilkinson, John


Spencer, Derek
Wood, Timothy


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John



Taylor, John (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Mr. Michael Portillo.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Bob Clay: rose—

Mr. Nellist: rose—

It being after Ten o 'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee reported progress.

It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &amp;c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1986–87

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,206,135,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1987, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 8 and 43.

ESTIMATES 1987–88 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £44,907,033,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 54.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Ian Stewart and Mr. Peter Brooke.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Mr. Norman Lamont accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1987 and 1988: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That, at this day's sitting, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 167.

Division No. 26]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Amess, David


Alexander, Richard
Ancram, Michael






Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian


Ashby, David
Gower, Sir Raymond


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Greenway, Harry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Baldry, Tony
Ground, Patrick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grylls, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bendall, Vivian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hannam, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Blackburn, John
Harris, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Harvey, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Bottomley, Peter
Hayes, J.


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Henderson, Barry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hickmet, Richard


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hicks, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hill, James


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brinton, Tim
Hirst, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Browne, John
Holt, Richard


Bruinvels, Peter
Hordern, Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Howard, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bulmer, Esmond
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Burt, Alistair
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Butcher, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Butterfill, John
Hunter, Andrew


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jackson, Robert


Cash, William
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cockeram, Eric
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Conway, Derek
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Simon
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cope, John
Knowles, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David


Corrie, John
Lang, Ian


Couchman, James
Latham, Michael


Crouch, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dicks, Terry
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert
Lord, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Nicholas


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
McCrindle, Robert


Evennett, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Macfarlane, Neil


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Maclean, David John


Favell, Anthony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fletcher, Alexander
McQuarrie, Albert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David


Forman, Nigel
Major, John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Eric
Malone, Gerald


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marlow, Antony


Freeman, Roger
Mather, Carol


Fry, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Gale, Roger
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Galley, Roy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mellor, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)





Miscampbell, Norman
Rathbone, Tim


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Rhodes James, Robert


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon C.
Roe, Mrs Marion


Mudd, David
Rowe, Andrew


Neale, Gerrard
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Neubert, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Newton, Tony
Silvester, Fred


Nicholls, Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Norris, Steven
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Osborn, Sir John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thurnham, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pollock, Alexander
Watson, John


Porter, Barry
Whitfield, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powley, John



Price, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. David Lightbown and


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Michael Portillo.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dewar, Donald


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Dubs, Alfred


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashdown, Paddy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eadie, Alex


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnett, Guy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Flannery, Martin


Beith, A. J.
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Freud, Clement


Blair, Anthony
Godman, Dr Norman


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hancock, Michael


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Caborn, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Home Robertson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clarke, Thomas
Howells, Geraint


Clay, Robert
Hoyle, Douglas


Clelland, David Gordon
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Hon Greville


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Charles


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kirkwood, Archy


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted






Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Livsey, Richard
Redmond, Martin


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Richardson, Ms Jo


McCartney, Hugh
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


McGuire, Michael
Rogers, Allan


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rooker, J. W.


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


McTaggart, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Marek, Dr John
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maxton, John
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Michie, William
Soley, Clive


Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Strang, Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Nellist, David
Tinn, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Torney, Tom


O'Brien, William
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Welsh, Michael


Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Parry, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pavitt, Laurie



Pendry, Tom
Tellers for the Noes:


 Penhaligon, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Mr. Don Dixon.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I saw on the Tapes downstairs the announcement that the Government propose immediately to suspend further consideration of the Bill. I do not know whether that report is accurate. It seemed to delight a rather large number of Conservative Members. If this is an official pronouncement from the Department of Education and Science, it must be a profound discourtesy to the House for it to hear of it in that surprising way. The Secretary of State should immediately make an explanation to the House about his further intentions.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads. I have no intention of suspending consideration of the Bill. We have just started. We have just dealt with the first set of amendments. The debate is just beginning, it is just warming up, and we should proceed.

Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I shall not take any further points of order for the simple reason that the House has just passed the 10 o'clock motion, so we should now get on with our business.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill

Again considered in Committee

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Sir Paul. I wish to raise a point that I mentioned during the Division about half an hour ago. As I understand it, we have just voted on amendment No. 2, which was essentially a paving

amendment for amendments Nos. 8 to 14, any one of which could have been introduced if amendment No. 2 had been passed. As the Committee has not accepted that amendment, I assume that we cannot vote on amendments Nos. 8 to 14.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 20 propose a substantially different approach from that of making an order. Would it therefore be possible, provided that his remarks are germane to amendments Nos. 17 to 20, for my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to make a contribution to the debate? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am not asking hon. Members; I am asking you, Sir Paul. My hon. Friend was unable to catch your eye when the Division was called.
May I request that the Committee be given an opportunity to vote on amendments Nos. 17 and 18? If that is possible, how shall I do that? There is a difference between the machinery for negotiation mentioned in amendment No. 17 and the retrospective nature of amendment No. 18, neither of which has been properly covered in the options that have fallen because we did not pass amendment No. 2.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I assure the Committee that the Chairman of Ways and Means considered these matters very carefully before the proceedings began. The occupants of the chair, of course, have been following the debate carefully. The ruling is that I am not prepared to allow another Division on the group of amendments that we have discussed. The Chairman of Ways and Means will consider the request by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) as to the possibility of a Division on one or other of the new clauses which have been discussed with that group of amendments. That is made with no commitment. That matter will be considered and, if it is decided that a Division can be held on one or other of the new clauses, it will, of course, take place at the appropriate time, according to the Amendment Paper.

Mr. Clay: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Before the Division on amendment No. 2, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) was on his feet. I was sitting less than a yard from him. I accept that it is not always possible for the occupant of the Chair to notice those hon. Members who are standing, especially down this end of the Chamber. As I understand it, in Committee proceedings if an hon. Member is standing and he or she catches the eye of the occupant of the Chair, the only way in which he or she can be stopped from speaking is by a closure motion. That motion was not moved before the Division on amendment No. 2. I ask, in case this happens again to any hon. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton, who are standing and wishing to speak—after all, my hon. Friend had not spoken in the debate until then, but he was clearly standing and hoping to catch the Chairman's eye—that you will cast your eye in various directions, especially this one, as the night continues, so that hon. Members are not again denied the opportunity to speak on matters that they think are important.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that it will be clear to the Committee that there is a wide range of amendments still to be considered. I shall be very disappointed if any hon. Member on either side of the Chamber does not have an opportunity to catch the Chairman's eye at some time during the coming hours.

Mr. Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 5, at end insert
'and is replaced by a negotiating machinery as set out in the document agreed under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 5, at end insert
'and school teachers' pay shall be determined by the agreement reached at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between the local education authorities and the teachers' unions'.
New clause 1—Pension arrangements—
'The Secretary of State shall ensure that, for the determination of pension arrangements, the agreement on pay reached under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on 21st November 1986 shall be deemed to have effect from 1st January 1987.'.

Mr. Radice: This group of amendments centres on the role of ACAS and the agreement negotiated under ACAS auspices between employers and unions representing well over half the teachers. Before any Conservative Member says that this does not have the support of many teachers, I remind them that the NUT and the AMMA between them include well over half the teachers. Hon. Members will have seen the preliminary results of the AMMA ballot, which show that the majority of AMMA members favour the agreement. I suspect that the same is true of the NUT. The claim which is continually made in trying to undermine the agreement—that it does not have the support of the majority of teachers—will be seen to be unfounded.
I remind hon. Members that the immediate background against which the Bill is being introduced is more promising than it has been for a number of years. As I said on Second Reading, the public are paying much more attention to education, and this in part, is related to parents' anxiety to have a long-term settlement of the issue. We must all work towards that end.
I recognise that the Government have at last switched policy. We have said several times that it is a pity that it did not happen before. If money on the scale that is now being offered had been offered two years ago, there would not have been a teachers' dispute. However, we recognise that the Government have shown a new willingness to fund a reasonable settlement, and that creates the possibility of settling the issue.
The third encouraging feature is that the local authority employers and unions representing the majority of teachers have agreed to this far-reaching package, covering pay and conditions. Even the Secretary of State, albeit reluctantly, has had to admit that the talks have made useful progress.
Most hon. Members would agree that a lasting solution to the problem of teachers' pay and conditions must tackle four issues. The first is that teachers' pay has fallen behind that of comparable groups of professionals. That is the relative criterion by which we should judge teachers' pay. No one would challenge that statement.
Secondly, the existing pay structure which links promotion opportunities to pupil numbers at a time of falling rolls has locked the great bulk of teachers on to the bottom two pay scales. We must do something about that. Thirdly, there is a need for a clearer definition of teachers'

professional duties and for improvements in the conditions of service. Again, there is not much quarrel about that. Fourthly, we need an overhaul of the present arrangements for dealing with the determination of teachers' pay and conditions. Again, there will be no quarrel about that.
I argue that the deal reached by the local authorities and the unions representing the majority of teachers tackles all those issues. It will ensure that all teachers receive a significant salary increase, especially the low-paid workers, and, by replacing the present system of pay scales by a single main professional grade, it offers every teacher the prospect of a steady improvement in earnings as their careers progress. The new main professional grade offers all teachers the prospect of their salaries rising through 13 increments from £9,970 to £15,058. That is a professional career structure, leading to professional salaries.
By contrast—this point has not been made sufficiently strongly—the Government's proposals will put a ceiling of £12,700 on the earnings of an unpromoted teacher. The problem is that many teachers will reach that ceiling after only a few years' service. The pay structure favoured by the Government does not offer enough teachers a decent salary scale, whereas the new salary level and structure will ensure that teaching recruits and retains people of the highest ability and motivation.
I know—no doubt we shall argue about this—that the Government believe that there should be more promoted posts and additional increments. I hope that the Minister of State will comment on the fact that the NUT has said repeatedly that there is a case for an allowance additional to the first two allowances. I understand that the Government favour five additional allowances, so we are beginning to enter an area where compromise is at least possible. The Government have not recognised that sufficiently, and when we are away from the hurly-burly of the hustings later tonight—when serious professionals get down to discussing the details—I hope that we can agree that the gap between the two sides is not too large.
The agreement incorporates a list of 13 duties, setting out teachers' professional obligations, including participation in schemes of appraisal and consulting parents. I do not want to read out the contractual duties of teachers, although no doubt some of my hon. Friends will want to do so as the evening wears on. I have a list here which I can lend them when the time comes. But that is relevant, because the Government have said that those duties should be in a teacher's contract. They are already in the ACAS agreement and we have not had sufficient recognition of that from the Government.
10.45 pm
The last point that needs to be recognised is that the Nottingham/London agreement acknowledges the need for a radical overhaul of the Burnham committee. Again, the Government have not sufficiently accepted the progress that has been made. The agreement recognises that pay and conditions of service need to be dealt with together and that the Government should be involved in collective bargaining. In the previous debate the Secretary of State made much of the fact that the ACAS agreement had merely spelt out in principle the role of the Secretary of State and said that his role should be discussed with him. He pooh-poohed that, when instead he should build on it in order to obtain a satisfactory solution, so that the fact that the Government pay at least 46 per cent. of the


total teachers' salary bill can be recognised in the negotiating structures. That is something on which both sides of the House agree.
If we can get that, the Government should be seizing on it. They should accept that there is a great movement forward here. If we can get an agreement covering all those aspects, there is no need for the Government to move in the way that they have on the Bill.
This is basically a good agreement between the employers and the unions representing the majority of teachers which should be recognised as such by the Secretary of State. The differences between the Government's position and that reached at Nottingham and London are not all that great. I have heard a lot about the cost, but I repeat that that is no unbridgeable divide. Everybody is well aware that a month's delay in implementation saves at least £40 million. That is a pretty big move towards the £80 million we are talking about.
As I said on Second Reading, if the Secretary of State wants an agreed package, there is one there for the asking. It really is up to the Government to make up their mind. Do they want an agreed settlement, with all the benefits that that is likely to bring in acceptability and in creating peace in the classroom, or will they risk the gamble of imposing a solution which could well be unpopular and could lead to renewed disruption—although I hope that it does not? The Secretary of State will have the added problem that he will be blamed directly for what happens. If he steps in in this deus ex machina role he will be blamed if things go wrong.
In the circumstances, the sensible position for a Government, particularly in the run-up to an election, is to work hard and get an agreement, which I believe can be obtained, between the employers, the Government and the teachers, based on the London/Nottingham agreement and taking into account the points that the Secretary of State has made.
The purpose of our amendments is to remind the Secretary of State just how great is the progress that has been made, how small the differences are and how sensible it would be to grasp the ACAS agreement and for the Government to make it their own.

Mr. Greenway: The position adopted by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is both encouraging and discouraging. He knows that I am of the opinion that, if humanly possible, a compromise should be reached. He also knows that I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes a compelling point when he says that there must be a sufficient number of differentials to cover those who have heavy, medium and little responsibility.

Mr. Radice: I know that the hon. Gentleman believes in a compromise solution and he has made that clear in the House. I respect him for what he has said. We listen with great respect to what he says about educational matters. However, how many additional posts does he think are required?

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's solution, in terms of the number of posts required, is very much nearer to what is required than the ACAS agreement. There should be four or five differentials. To have fewer would lead to the position that I knew when

I began to teach 30 years ago, and it is not a position to which we should return. In that school 30 years ago there were about 30 staff, only one of whom, besides the head and the deputy head, was paid for additional responsibilities. It did not allow that school to be run adequately and efficiently. In schools of that size today there are 12 or 14 posts of responsibility. That is near to what is envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and it would be in the interests of the teaching profession. We must make it possible for people to gain promotion.
I remember the very first strike of teachers at the William Penn school. They were members of the National Association of Schoolmasters. They went on strike to gain a place on the Burnham committee. The next strike involved NAS members throughout London. The attitude of teachers to strikes has changed completely within the space of only a few years.
The hon. Member for Durham, North said that he thought I was right when I said that a compromise ought to be the aim, but he has moved an amendment that asks the Committee to accept the ACAS deal. Such inconsistency is unacceptable. The 13 conditions in the ACAS agreement cover much valuable ground. I appreciate that the unions have made progress on devising a respectable contract for teachers. But somebody needs to speak up for those who have to run the schools. Not to have a clause that requires teachers to carry out the reasonable duties that a head teacher requires them to carry out is a very serious ommission. I do not support dictatorial heads, but they must be able to say to their teachers that something has to be done and that they must do it. It is a serious omission, and for that reason alone I could not vote for the ACAS agreement.

Mr. Radice: The preamble to the 13 duties reads:
Under the reasonable direction of the head teacher.
I should have thought that that was very clear.

Mr. Greenway: I am not satisfied about it; it needs to be tightened up. I have studied the matter and discussed it with those who are responsible for running our schools.
Under the agreement in the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Durham, North, teachers with small responsibilities will get a whacking increase. Other teachers with heavy responsibilities who are bearing the heat and burden of the day in a way that only those with top responsibilities in schools can will get little. That does not seem to be equitable. A great deal more talking needs to be done to produce a compromise that is fair and in the interests of all sections of the profession.

Mr. Dormand: It has to be said at the outset, that while there are some differences of opinion among teacher unions about the negotiated agreement, there are no divisions whatsoever on negotiating machinery. I respect very much the experience of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in teaching and the responsibility that he had, but I am surprised that he made no reference to that at all. I hoped that he and other Conservative Members would realise that that is the crucial thing with regard to ACAS, but there are other matters to which I shall refer.
The unions have already agreed to replace the Burnham committee with a national joint council for dealing with pay and conditions of service for teachers and, in so doing, acknowledged the need for a role for the Secretary of State in the new negotiating machinery. That is important, On


Second Reading on Monday, I was astonished at the Ignorance—I think that that is the correct word—shown by Conservative Members in some of their speeches—

Mr. Radice: About what was in the Bill.

Mr. Dormand: Indeed. That is absolutely right. But I am referring in particular to the Burnham committee. At least two Conservative Members assumed that the committee was still supported by ACAS, the unions and everybody else. That was not so. It was astonishing, in a Second Reading debate on an issue of such importance, to come across such a lack of knowledge.

Mr. Frank Cook: They believe what they want to believe.

Mr. Dormand: That is absolutely right. Nobody is showing more evidence of that than the Secretary of State. He is overriding the normal democratic processes. Some of us had considerable respect for the Secretary of State. I think that I am right in saying that this is his second term in the House of Commons. In 1973 I heard what I considered to be a good speech by the right hon. Gentleman. I said how good I thought it was but that he had better be careful because he might get the reputation of being a smoothie. I am not the only one who refers to the Secretary of State nowadays as a smoothie. It appears that that is the reputation that he is getting. But a "smoothie" seems to suggest something fairly superficial. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has made a more devastating criticism of the Secretary of State, with which I agree. It was widely reported in the press after his speech on Monday.
The unions and Labour Members accept that there is a role for the Secretary of State in the negotiating process. I say that because the impression is given constantly that that is not so. I am at a loss to understand that. I do not see that any mileage or kudos are to be gained by that. Labour Members and ACAS—apparently everbody but the Government recognise that there is a role. Indeed, it is an important role.

Mr. Radice: There has to be.

Mr. Dormand: That is right. The reason is, as the Secretary of State has said properly on several occasions, that he represents the taxpayer. That is right. There is nothing wrong with that. However, I have to say that that is a role that has been played by the Secretary of State under Burnham for all the years that that system has been in operation. Why should there be criticism, or inferred ciriticism, from Conservative Members on that point. What is to be gained by trying to give that impression?
11pm
The principle that any new machinery for teachers' pay and conditions of service should include direct negotiations—I repeat, direct negotiations—is absolutely fundamental. Unless the Government or even the Opposition, recognise that, they are doing the education service a grave injustice. The advisory committee is a direct and total denial of that principle. I have done some research in the Library on this and I know of no other country, at least in the western world, where such complete denial is part of the process of determining such matters. After all, there are few things more important than the pay and conditions of any category of society, including the vital service of education.
The agreement provides for a national joint council to deal with pay and other conditions of service for teachers and in doing so it acknowledges the need for discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new negotiating machinery. Having said that, I fail to see how anybody, except perhaps one or two Conservative Members can fail to be disillusioned by the provision for consultation in the Bill. It is no more than a farce. It has been said on a number of occasions that it is a facade. If that is not recognised then, frankly, the Government and Conservative Members are not doing education a service.
The Secretary of State and Conservative Members frequently refer to the division among teachers' unions. On the question of negotiating machinery, the Secretary of State has had a clear and unequivocal joint letter from the NUT, the NAS/UWT, AMMA and the Secondary Heads Association. I believe that some hon. Members have received a copy of that letter. I shall quote from the letter because I think that it is important. It states:
We are united in our opposition to your Bill which removes from teacher organisations the right to direct negotiations. We urge you to reconsider your position and to accept the principle that any new negotiating machinery for teachers' pay and conditions should include direct negotiation.
I hope that I am not wearying the Committee by the use of the words "direct negotiation", because, after all, that is the nub of the problem. As I and some of my hon. Friends have said, we know of no other country where that is denied. It is a brushing away of the democratic process in 1986. The quotation sums up in the clearest terms what the amendments are about. They have the support of the vast majority of teachers.
I have referred to the unions, but, of course, there is the same kind of support from the employers' organisations. All hon. Members have had letters from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of County Councils. I was particularly interested to read the views of the Association of County Councils. It said that it has argued for many years for the repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 which, it feels, has inhibited proper negotiations concerning teachers' salaries, and effectively blocked the sensible possibility of negotiating pay together with other conditions of service for more than 20 years. I do not agree with that view. I think that the association has gone over the top. There is some substance in it but that is not the issue. We are talking about the consensus between everybody concerned, and the Government are simply not recognising that. There is a wave of protest and the Government still fail to recognise and deal with it.
I repeat what I said on a previous occasion. I am deeply concerned that the Government have not recognised how far the unions have moved in agreeing to include conditions of service in the negotiations. It is yet another example of the Government being out of touch with the realities of the world of education and of teachers in particular. They had better be aware of the resentment that that is causing among teachers and employers. The Association of County Councils states:
The majority of teachers' representatives had generally, and until recently, opposed any changes which would have allowed effective negotiations. They have now, under the aegis of the ACAS talks, agreed a new framework for negotiations with the employers which would enable those changes to take place.
Other hon. Members will be aware of how long the ACC has been trying to bring about those changes. I do not


want to make you blush, Mr. Armstrong, but you were one of the most distinguished headmasters that our county had and your reputation lives on. Part of that reputation was concerned with what I have just said. I hope that Conservative Members will bear that in mind because it is of fundamental importance.
It is no wonder that the ACC enthused so much about what it considered to be a fundamental change of heart, but the employers' joy was soon extinguished because the Bill removes from them any decision-making at all. That has been one of our constant criticisms. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State hogs all the decisions on basic pay and conditions. He will decide what is to be discussed and what is to be referred to the advisory body.
We are not likely to get an answer on this, but my hon. Friends and I would be interested to know how many objections have been and will be made by Tory councellors. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister is not listening."] I appreciate that the Minister has important matters to consider—

Mr. Frank Cook: Her car is coming. She is on her way to Annabel's by the look of it.

Mr. Dormand: How many objections have there been from Tory councillors? The agreement was clearly reached with the assent of all or most Tory councillors. It will also be interesting to see how many objections there are in the future because this measure will sweep away the powers of Tory councillors as well as those of the Labour persuasion.
When I collected my late mail between the two Divisions a short while ago I certainly did not expect to find a letter from the employers' chairman of the management panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee. It is a short letter, but it is the most important that I have received so far on this controversial Bill. It says:
As you will know the Government has introduced a Bill to repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 and establish, initially on an interim basis to March 1990, an Advisory Committee which will make (non-binding) recommendations to the Secretary of State on teachers' pay and conditions within pre-determined financial constraints.
I have written to the Secretary of State (as attached) calling upon him to reconsider his position.
The Government's Bill would, if enacted, have the effect of excluding both the employers and the unions from decision-making on the most expensive element of the education budget.
I break off the quotation there because that epitomises my argument and that which my right hon. and hon. Friends have made and will continue to make for the rest of the debate. The letter continues:
Even leaving aside the unilateral nature of the Bill, the implications of the proposed Advisory Committee clearly stretch beyond issues of teachers' pay and conditions in such a way as fundamentally to call in question the balance between LEAs and the DES.
I do not think that any Conservative Member can deny that that is absolutely correct. The letter continues:
I am convinced that the Government's Bill will, far from achieving its purported objective, make the situation in the schools even worse than it has been. Moreover, it is in itself retrograde and undemocratic and should for that reason alone be rejected.
I would be very willing to discuss these issues with MPs either singly or collectively.

The issue must be considered important if he is prepared to discuss the matter singly. I should like to repeat the penultimate sentence which runs:
Moreover, it is in itself retrograde and undemocratic and should for that reason alone be rejected.
That is the nub of the argument. If the employers' chairman from the management panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee has added his weight to the letters, objections and telephone calls that we have received and still the Government will take no notice, when will they take any notice of any argument? We know, of course, that they are autocratic.
I could refer to many other documents, but I know that other hon. Friends wish to speak. The amendments are simply a recognition of present circumstances in the world of education. They are a recognition of the fairness which everyone except the Government appreciates is essential if stability and progress are to return to our schools. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North has said often, and has repeated again today—we are as anxious as anyone that peace and stability should be restored to classrooms.
The Government could be hardly more wrong than they are to try to impose what they call a solution in the form of the Bill. The amendments recognise the balance and compromise which are essential ingredients in a sensible solution, especially in the present inflamed situation. I give the amendments my wholehearted support.

Mr. Flannery: Tuesday's Guardian carried the heading:
Government determined to close this sorry business—Baker hardens stance on forced teachers' deal
The report said:
The Education Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Baker, has hardened his stance in the teachers' dispute, telling MPs yesterday they must be in no doubt about the Government's determination to 'close this sorry business.'
Throughout the Commons second reading debate"—
many of us were involved in that—
on the bill to abolish the Burnham teachers' pay negotiating machinery, Mr. Baker made plain his willingness to use its powers to impose his own solution to the two-year dispute.
The negotiating process has been built up over many years. Any hon. Member who has taught, as quite a few have, knows how teachers gradually learn about the process of democracy in negotiations, especially between a local education authority and its teachers' organisations, and how that education authority is itself democratically built up, and what there is in the authority. There are elected representatives, usually with long and detailed experience. Not everybody can do the job. It took me years to get on to a local education committee.

Mr. Greenway: indicated assent.

Mr. Flannery: I can see the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), an ex-teacher like myself, nodding in agreement.
We all know what it took. The type of person who can go on an education committee does not grow on trees. They are people with long experience, who have devoted themselves to this and have proved themselves. They come from both sides and there is a core of elected people and a little group of co-opted people. Through the years, they get to know one another. A rapport develops — an integration born of democracy and of long years together.
Side by side with these committees are the teachers' unions. None of us wants the teachers' unions to be disparate and split. We would like them to be unified, just as the authority is unified. In all areas—for example, big cities—there are joint committees of the teachers' unions. On the committee on which I served for many years, head teachers were represented, with their members changing at two-year intervals. Each of the teachers' unions was there, working together, and they formulated their conclusions about what they needed to negotiate on. They went back to their organisations, returned to the joint committee and then on to the local education authority as representatives of the unions. All this was a natural process of democracy being built up with patience year after year.
To override this because of frustration will not solve the problem of teaching our children, a problem that has come about over this long, weary, tiring, but still democratic, process. It is untidy, but it is the best that we have got, as Churchill said. It is a process whereby people get together, and no matter what difficulties they have, they attempt to come to a consensus or a compromise, and go on with the education of our children.
Everything that went on in that process came from the hard work of democratic people and through organisations built up patiently over 100 or 150 years by the people who worked in them. That process of patient, built-up democracy is so precious that to destroy it by a hasty move is not in the interests of the people who would take such action. At a later stage, the short cut that they are taking will find them out, just as any diktat, anywhere, made by the the Right, the Left or the centre, will not work, but will promote its opposite.
Democracy, which is a steady, on-going process, will ultimately prevail. Those who take the short cuts embodied in the Bill are ploughing the ocean. It will swill back over them at some stage, just as it has swilled back over Chirac in France, after the nonsense that he tried to put into the French educational system, having been warned by the President not to do it.
The Bill is born of frustration. The Government no longer have the patience to go on with the democratic process. They are angry, hurt and upset and no longer willing to go on arguing. The Government created the situation because they did not provide enough money to pay for the educational system that had been patiently built up over the years. They have allowed our schools to get into a mess and they sought and finally found a short, quick way out.
Our amendment seeks to replace the Burnham committee. We admit, many of us against our will, that the work of that committee has come to nothing, but that is because the Government failed to provide the money to keep it in being. We accept that, democratic as it is, the committee is not acceptable to this powerful Government with their overwhelming voting power in the Chamber and a paucity of arguments. The Government did not know what to do and finally took these draconian measures. It saddens me to find many democrats on the Government side bowing their heads to this draconian process.
We say in the amendment that the Burnham committee should be
replaced by a negotiating machinery as set out in the document agreed under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service"—
that is ACAS—

between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions.".
Together with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I am one of the longest serving members of two Select Committees. We have been to other countries to study their education systems. I see in the Chamber hon. Members who have gone with me to Northern Ireland, and they know that what I am saying is true. We looked at education systems and in our private conversations we proudly agreed that none of them is as good as ours.
Just over a year ago I was in Germany with members of a Select Committee, and I can say categorically that the system we saw there is not nearly as good as ours—in spite of Germany's advances in trade and industry. Our failure in those fields is due to the failure of the Government's policy of monetarism and because Germany has invested money in its industry. It has nothing to do with the education system.
In Germany, there are no television sets in primary schools. We were told that there were some in the secondary schools, but when we checked we found none. The schools there are not as well equipped as ours and our schools are more relaxed and better in every way. In France, before a teacher can be moved from one school to another or placed in a school, permission has to be sought from Paris. I think the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) was with me when we went with members of a Select Committee, and he knows that that is true.

Mr. Tim Brinton: The hon. Gentleman says that I was a member of a Select Committee in the last Parliament and that I can confirm all that he says. I am afraid I cannot do that, because as a television practitioner I would not worry too much if there were no television sets in schools. There is one difference between us.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is a friend and we had the occasional drink together after meetings. He says that television in schools is not a good thing. I suspected on occasion that the hon. Gentleman was reactionary when it came to television in schools, and now I know that that is true. Anybody who does not realise that if it is used intelligently television is a great instrument for advancement is detached by a few years from today's reality.
We wish to insert the following:
and school teachers' pay shall be determined by the agreement reached at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between the local education authorities and the teachers' unions.
We are speaking against the background of a democratic process that has taken many years to evolve, a process that was hard-born and difficult, and the Government have failed properly to maintain the education system because they have not made enough money available to pay teachers adequately. They have become frustrated and have sought escape by taking the most draconian route open to them, a route which bypasses the democratic process. They have opted for a system which is unacceptable to those who have to teach in the schools, and without those people we cannot have education.
Teachers are massively dissatisfied with the Bill, which is unifying them against the Government. The Bill will bring about a struggle, and teachers will be agonising over whether to unleash another struggle. They will be agonising over what they should do. They will be discussing these matters with one another and asking themselves, "Do we engage in another struggle or do we bow our heads?" I have heard some teachers saying in this


place this evening that if they bow their heads they will get nowhere and if they struggle they will be accused of unleashing further conflict.
There is a struggle taking place that involves the maintenance of democracy in education and an antidemocratic short cut, and the short cut will be upheld by the Government's voting power in this place, despite their paucity of argument. The amendments are hard thought out. They are in favour of democracy in education and against a process of anti-democratic short cuts and diktat. If the Government's anti-democratic actions unleash a further struggle, be that on their conscience. They must understand that at some stage people will fight back against diktat, and that is the position we are reaching.

Mr. George Howarth: ACAS is a fine body, and I am sure that at least my right hon. and hon. Friends have had occasion to use it. It is a sensible, even-handed organisation which is respected by industry generally. It often solves complex problems in an imaginative and intelligent way that is acceptable to both sides of industry. I shall try to relate the role that ACAS could play in the teachers' dispute to the many interested groups in the education system. I do not think that there can be disentanglement without consideration being given to all the interested parties.
I am a parent, and I represent many thousands of parents in the part of the Knowsley which comes within my constituency, an area that has a high school-age population. It is of great concern to me and many other parents that we should get the education system right. We must achieve a lasting partnership between all the forces within the system, that will enable us to build for the future and provide a proper education system for our children. I accept that to some extent the Secretary of State has sought to achieve that in some of the actions that he has taken, but he has not succeeded.
Local education authorities are part of that which we call education, and we have seen Conservative Members beating them across the head with a big stick over the past few weeks. Conservative Members must understand that local authorities are elected democratically through the ballot box to look after the interests of local people. As such, they have a legitimate interest in the education system, and we cannot dismiss the role played by local authorities or feel that they have nothing to say on the subject, because they do. They are democratically elected and are an important ingredient in the whole equation.
Many parents are deeply concerned that the education system has gone sadly wrong because of recent events. Relationships have been soured and the whole process has been disrupted. None of these things has improved relationships within the schools, between teachers and education authorities, between teachers unions and the Government and between parents and teachers, all of which are in danger of going seriously sour.
11.30 pm
I have been a school governor for many years. It is now in vogue to say that there should be more parent governors with more powers, but my experience during the lifetime of this Government has been that many governors are extremely confused about their existing role and what is

happening to the education system. The Bill will add to their confusion and make them even more worried about the process in which they play a part.
We have heard about head teachers, and you, Mr. Armstrong, were referred to with some distinction by my hon. Friends. I have talked to head teachers in my constituency and elsewhere, and they feel that the process within which they are involved, the relationships within their schools and their relationships with the wider community are seriously in jeopardy because of a failure over a number of years to resolve these problems. They are especially concerned that factors such as the career structure and the recruitment of younger teachers have not been well served.
We must also talk about the teaching profession itself. In the early days of this Government I was a teacher in the further education sector. I shall be honest with the House. I left the teaching profession to work in the co-operative movement because, like my colleagues, I could see the way things were going. We felt that although there were growth sectors that could create new employment, the Government were not behind the education system. That process, which began in 1979, has merely accelerated to the extent that we are now in this sorry mess.
We must forge a new consensus that will give people in the profession—parents, teachers, local education authorities and others—some confidence that we know what we are doing. Above all, it should be a consensus which, unlike the Bill, does not alienate the teachers.
It is no good me or anyone else talking about partnership, consensus or a future for education if the end result is a disgruntled and unhappy teaching force. Education is a delicate balance between a number of interests that should not be seen as competing, because they are all to do with educating young people for a better future. That balance is totally destroyed by alienating the professionals in the way that the current process has done.
I have already referred to, and praised, the services of ACAS. Why not let a balanced body that is respected by everyone mediate in this matter and come up with a solution? My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred earlier to the contractual duties of main professional grade teachers, which, I understand, were agreed under the auspices of ACAS. An example of what can be achieved in the long term is the fact that several points have been agreed that should be highlighted.
The second point agreed stated:
Promote the general progress and welfare of a class or group of pupils; to provide initial guidance counselling on educational, social and career matters and record and report on these matters and on the personal and social need of pupils; liaise and consult with parents and outside agencies, and attend meetings arranged for these purposes.
We should expect teachers to perform such duties, but that is being put in jeopardy today.
Another duty is to
Advise and co-operate with colleagues on preparation and development of courses of study, teaching materials team planning teaching programmes, methods and pastoral arrangements.
That is honourable and proper, but it is jeopardised today.
The document also says that another duty is to
Co-ordinate the work of other teachers"—

Mrs. Rumbold: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He is reading a list of duties for teachers which were agreed in recent negotiations with ACAS and at


Nottingham. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those agreed duties are the duties originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State?

Mr. Howarth: I repeat that one of the duties is to
Co-ordinate the work of other teachers and undertake a defined role in the review, development and management of assigned curriculum, pastoral and organisational activities.
Fine points have been agreed, but they are being jeopardised.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister's intervention makes our argument for us. The unions have moved towards the Government. Is it not about time that the Government moved towards the unions and bargained voluntarily with them? They are not prepared to do that.

Mr. Howarth: That is the precise point. We are in danger of alienating the good will that emerged during the discussions and allowing the process to get out of hand.
I have some suggestions about what the Government should concentrate upon. We should be trying to wring out positive things from the education system. Many teachers are concerned about this. They are concerned not only about salaries, but about status and career structures and how they relate.
I am prepared to give the Government credit where it is due. They have achieved something with the police force, although that is unrelated to our discussion. Many of us take issue on some aspects of policing, but the police have a career and salary structure which builds for the future and for a high quality policy force. I accept that some benefit will be derived from that. If we can do that for the police force, why can we not do it for education? Why can we not trust in the goodwill and co-operation of an organisation such as ACAS to help us? Do the Government not believe that children deserve to be taught properly by a settled profession? The Government are not contributing towards the establishment of a settled profession.
What are parents to think of an education system which is in disarray and which we think is about to enter a period of disruption and problems? As a parent, I know of all the problems involved in educating children and in the balance of people's domestic lives when they try to cope with the sort of disruption that is almost certain to follow the passing of the Bill.
Children's futures will be damaged. Education opportunities will be missed and the potential to improve teaching and the running of our schools will be lost, because goodwill will be lost. The future of education will be undermined and the future of some children may be jeopardised.
Local education authorities are dismayed by the Secretary of State's apparent obsession with the books that ILEA is worried about. He seems more interested in that topic than in what goes on in schools. The right hon. Gentleman is corresponding with the chairman of the education committee in Knowsley about whether there will be a city technology college in the area, and the chairman of the education committee has said that we in Knowsley are concerned with children
who have little or no support in the home and who are victims of other kinds of economic and cultural disadvantage".
Those matters should be given more weight. They are not receiving the attention that they deserve because there is trench warfare between the unions and the Government.
I suggest that local authorities would be delighted if the dispute could be settled through ACAS in a sober, considered and thoughtful way so that we can get on with building up the education service. Many, probably most, teachers would accept that that would be an intelligent way forward. Once the agreement is settled and secure they can get on with the job that they trained for and aspire to—teaching children.
The ACAS option would also give the profession the opportunity to settle matters for a generation or more. As with the police, new entrants would know what future and what pay scales to expect. I am sure that the profession would accept the ACAS option as a viable one. Once matters were settled, head teachers, who are another important ingredient, would welcome the chance to get on with organising the education of our children.
The amendment would give all interested parties the opportunity to consign the recent past to history and to concentrate on the many issues that would still be outstanding. For example, what do we want from our education system and from our teaching profession in helping to deliver those objectives? How can we ensure that curriculum developments and teaching methods enable our children to realise their potential? I feel strongly about that matter, because I lived in an area where many of my contemporaries who were bright and had great potential did not get the chances to realise it. To a great extent, that is still true in my constituency.
How do we involve the wider community? I am talking not of a trivial or flash-in-the-pan approach, but of involving the community, local government, the profession and parents in building a consensus in education. It is important to build on that consensus. We are talking about a partnership in which due weight is given to all those involved, and in which staff in the education system, parents, local education authorities and the wider community consider that they have a stake in the education service.
By solving the vexatious and highly charged problem of pay, conditions and structure through ACAS, we shall open a road that will lead to new opportunities and to a new age in which we may properly discuss the problems of educating our children.

Mr. Dormand: All hon. Members will agree with my hon. Friend's view. His speech has not only been eloquent and passionate, but very informed. His last point about partnership is crucial. Does he agree that, since they were elected in 1979, the Government have placed great importance—some may say they have had a fetish about it—on non-interference in local affairs? They have placed a great deal of importance on autonomy and letting local people get on with the job. My hon. Friend referred to the role of governors. He is right about that matter. The Government have made great play of the fact.

Mr. Dunn: indicated assent.

Mr. Dormand: The Minister has shown his agreement. Since 1979 the Government have placed great importance on the role of governors. This is a draconian Bill, as my hon. Friend said, which represents complete and utter interference from the centre. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we must continue to repeat this fact. I suspect that Conservative Members know it, too, but are afraid to say so.

Mr. Howarth: I take my hon. Friend's point. The Government pledged themselves to take the state off the backs of the people but they have put heavy burdens on the backs of many people, particularly those in the education service.
As a former councillor, I believe that the autonomy of local government has been seriously jeopardised. That is reflected in the education service. A wealth of evidence has been produced by bodies such as the AMA and the ACC as well as by independent bodies. The Audit Commission has made criticisms. The evidence is so strong that we are sure that local autonomy has gone out the window. The Bill is one more example of that process.
I referred to the crisis in the education service, which seems about to deepen. The forces to which I referred are likely to be even more disgruntled, worried and concerned. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen fail to recognise that this is happening, in the short term there will be damage to the future chances and education of our children. In the long term, children will not achieve their aims. That is a serious concern of Labour Members. In the long term—Labour Members hope it is not too long—the Bill may be one more nail in the snug-fitting coffin that is being prepared for the Conservative Government.

Mr. Cohen: I was disappointed that I was not called in the debate on the first group of amendments. I shall not go over them—[HON. MEMBERS: "GO on."]—although I am being egged on by my hon. Friends. I wanted to raise the issue of the breaches of international law that could occur under this legislation. The debate on the first group of amendments provided a good opportunity to consider International Labour Organisation conventions 98 and 151, to which the Government subscribed, yet they are now breaching them. That is a serious matter. As we know, the Government are relying heavily on international law to fight terrorism. Although this issue is not on the same scale, once international law is breached, no matter how small the breach—it is not small to the teachers—Britain's role in other important international matter is weakened. This debate is not the right time to make a point on that, but I hope that there will be opportunities later to debate possible breaches of international law under this legislation. I would welcome that, because the Chamber is full of lawyers, and it would be good to take advantage of informed legal expertise.
The Government's continuous mishandling of this long-running dispute has been damaging to the teaching profession and to schoolchildren, who are being denied their fundamental right to education. Parents are increasingly angry about the Government's role in exacerbating this long-running dispute. It will be brought home to parents that this legislation will exacerbate the discontent in schools and the dispute. Parents will become wise to the Government's actions and will be very annoyed.
Above all, the Government have shown their contempt for teachers. They have totally disregarded the role of ACAS in settling the teachers' dispute and in forming the framework to deal with future disputes and negotiations. I know that you have let the debate become a little wide-ranging, Mr. Armstrong—

Dr. Marek: No.

Mr. Cohen: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater experience in these matters. ACAS has a valuable role to play.
ACAS has made recommendations regarding the replacement of Burnham. Those recommendations are contained in a Library briefing paper, which is an excellent summary. The document states:
The ACAS Agreement between the local authority employers and the teachers' unions (drawn up on 21 November 1986) proposed a new negotiating machinery in the form of a National Joint Council composed of representatives of the LEAs and the six teachers' unions to negotiate pay and other conditions of service for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales along the following lines.
It is interesting to note that ACAS wished to involve the teacher unions and the employers directly in the national joint council. Just compare that with the Government's denial of such an effective role to the employers and the unions.
The document continues by detailing the arrangements:
National Joint Council. The parties will establish a National Joint Council for the purpose of negotiating pay and other conditions of service for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales. Delivery of agreements. The parties will seek the introduction of a legislative requirement obliging LEAs to implement the salary scales agreed by the NJC. Otherwise, the agreements of the NJC will be made binding both on LEAs and on teachers through incorporation by the LEAs of national agreements into the contracts of individual teachers.
Therefore, a formula is available to settle disputes.
The document continues:
Composition of the NJC. The NJC will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee. The balance of the representation on each side will be determined with the assistance of ACAS.
That is much fairer than the Government's advisory committee, to which the Secretary of State will appoint whom he wants.
On the role of the Secretary of State, the document states:
The parties will seek discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new machinery.
By introducing this Bill, the Secretary of State is saying that he is not interested in getting round the table and working out a formula whereby everyone is involved in the negotiations. The document continues:
Local disputes. In drawing up the detailed constitution of the proposed NJC the parties will make arrangements for dealing with local disputes over the determination and application of national agreements and for access to those arrangements.
I read that document because I think it is important to know what ACAS has said it recommends as the replacement for Burnham. It must be compared with the Secretary of State's proposal for replacing Burnham. He does not propose an integrated, detailed and fair formula which involves all the parties. He has said, "Burnham is no good; it will be replaced by me." ACAS has been constructive; the Secretary of State has been singularly destructive in this matter. ACAS has sought democratic solutions in replacing Burnham; the Secretary of State has made singularly undemocratic proposals.
In reply to the earlier debate, the Secretary of State said that the parties had sought to impose their agreement, reached by the employers and the trade unions, with the help of ACAS, after very hard negotiations, upon him. In every other walk of life, employers and trade unions get


together, negotiate and make agreements that eventually stick, but the Secretary of State says that that is not good enough in this case. He is the odd man out in this process. He has put a block on the agreements that were reached after such hard negotiation. He is imposing his will upon the teachers and the employers.
There will be great anger, not only among the teachers but among the parents as well, when it is realised that agreement was reached, yet that has been denied by the Secretary of State. In its place he has put his own wide-ranging set of impositions and powers. He is removing the right of teachers to negotiate and have a realistic say in the negotiations of their pay and conditions of service. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to impose any level of pay and conditions of service that he wishes on teachers in England and Wales. The Secretary of State will pick all the members of the advisory body and instruct them on what matters they can and cannot look into. He will tell them what money is available and what settlements cannot be made.
12 midnight
After all that, if the Secretary of State does not like what the advisory body says, he will have the power to over-rule any of its recommendations on his own. On top of that, he can make differential salary awards for different areas of the country and for teachers of different subjects. He has taken all those powers unto himself with no real democratic control upon him, and certainly without the people in the profession having a realistic say. He will be the only arbiter on pay and conditions of service of teachers and can modify or even ignore the advice of his own self-appointed advisory body.
The Secretary of State is adopting a fundamentally undemocratic approach in the Bill. Teachers' rights are being ridden over roughshod. Free collective bargaining is to be denied and the valued ACAS role, to which I and other hon. Members have referred, is also to be ridden over roughshod. There is to be no place in the Secretary of State's scheme of things for ACAS in bringing the parties to the table to reach the necessary agreement.
ACAS has not been lightly involved in these matters. Time is short, and nobody is interested in delaying these matters unduly, and other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not read in detail the agreement that ACAS reached. However, let me read the list of contents of that agreement to show how serious and detailed has been the role of ACAS in obtaining that hard-won agreement.
First, on the duties of teachers, the document lists their basic contractual requirements, the school-based job description and the voluntary activities. On the working time of teachers, it lists the days per year, the hours per week, the working time of head teachers and deputy head teachers. On the contractual limitations on teachers' workloads, it lists the class size and teaching support time, cover for absent colleagues, entry grade teachers and, teacher supply, On grade structure, it lists the general description of the new structure, the implementation from 1 September 1987, and the interim arrangements. On pay, it lists levels applicable from 1 September 1987, assimilation at 1 January and 1 September 1987, special education, starting salaries and incremental progression. On appraisal, it lists the ACAS working party report which was agreed easily by both sides.

Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee, because he felt aggrieved at not being called

to speak on the last group of amendments, whether this is the speech that he would have made on those amendments or whether it is a completely new speech?

Mr. Cohen: This series of amendments is about the role of ACAS. That is why I am referring to its role. If I had spoken in the debate on the previous group of amendments, I should have referred to the international law issue, to which I hope we shall return at a later stage.

Dr. Marek: At this stage it might be appropriate to read out amendment No. 4. It says:
Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert 'and is replaced by a negotiating machinery as set out in the document agreed under the auspices of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions.'
The purpose of my question is to ask my hon. Friend to confirm that he is quoting from the document that is mentioned in amendment No. 4.

Mr. Cohen: Yes, that is the document from which I am quoting. The list is extensive and covers a wide range. Earlier in the debate the Minister of State said that her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted to impose some of these conditions in the first place. That cannot be right, when so many new elements were agreed around the negotiating table between the parties.
As for special education, the agreement says that teachers who are currently in receipt of special class allowances—those on existing scales 2S and 3S—will from 1 January 1987 receive an allowance of £855 and will continue to receive it. Assimilation into the main professional grade of an existing scale 2S and 3S will be on the basis of the equivalent incremental point on scales 2 and 3, as the case may be. That is not an unreasonable increment for special education teachers. We do not provide sufficient salary incentives to attract teachers into special needs education. If the Secretary of State throws out the ACAS agreement he will also throw out the minimum additional element that ought to be paid to those who teach children with special educational needs.
As for class size, the agreement says that the overall class size limit of 33 shall be implemented as soon as possible and not later than 1 September 1987. It also states:
It is further agreed that an overall class size limit of 30 should be the first priority for implementation after the 1990 review".
I think that classes of 33 are still enormous. Proper education will not be given to the children in the way that we would like. That is the very minium. It is probably below the minimum that should be accepted in our schools. I bet that in the private schools, there are not classes of 30 and 33. Why should the schoolchildren in the state schools have that number in classes? It is wrong. Again, the Government are throwing out that proposal. Apart from not wanting to put up the money to pay the teachers, I suspect that that was one of the reasons in the back of the Government's mind for not wanting the agreement. They are prepared to see classes well over that number continuing for a good time yet. It is a shame that that has gone out of the window.
That is all that I want to say on the ACAS agreement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Good."]—directly about the agreement. If I had wanted to delay the Committee, I could have read many other passages from it. I am not keen to do so. Almost uniquely, the teachers are being


hammered by the Bill taking away their rights. Since 1919 they have had the right to negotiate their salaries and conditions of service. It has been enshrined in legislation since that time. The new proposal in the Bill which takes that away from them is unique in the history of public sector pay negotiations. No other group has been subjected to such authoritarian treatment by the Government. Other public sector groups with wage-fixing negotiations and agreements and independent review bodies could also suffer.
The teachers should not have fewer rights and less protection against unreasonable and arbitrary behaviour by the Secretary of State or any Government than other groups of workers that have independent review bodies and negotiation machinery. On what possible justification can the Minister say that teachers should have fewer rights than those other groups? A precedent will be created.

Dr. Marek: The only justification that the Secretary of State has is that he has a large majority. If the Government did not have that, and if there was a small majority, we would not have seen this legislation. There would have been no chance of it. After the next general election, there will be no chance of it. At the moment, the Government are in a fortuitous position. They thought of something that they could do to hammer the teachers even more, as my hon. Friend says. I cannot honestly think of any other reason why they are singling out the teachers in that way.

Mr. Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not morally justified and cannot be justified on any grounds of reasonableness.
The Bill represents a precedent for other employees and employers in the public sector with the end of their role in free negotiations between the employees and employers. The negotiating machinery and the review bodies that all the other public sector workers have will inevitably be at risk following the precedent set by the Government against the teachers.
Let me give some examples of all the other groups of workers who will be affected. There are loads of other bodies and negotiating machinery. The teachers in further education could suffer. About 700,000 professional, technical and clerical staff in local authorities could lose their rights if the precedent in set under the Bill is extended to them. Local authority manual workers have a national joint council and could suffer. There is the building and civil engineering NJC. Engineers, electricians, chief executives, chief officers, the probation service, magistrates courts, justices clerks, municipal airports and local authority fire brigades could suffer. The industrial Civil Service has a joint co-ordinating committee and could suffer. The non-industrial civil servants have a national Whitley council and eight Whitley councils cover the staff of the National Health Service such as ambulancemen, ancillary staff, dental services staff and many others. All those are at risk under the precedent that the Government are setting in teachers' pay negotiations. On top of that, as has been said, the police could be at risk from the precedent. Clearly that is quite wrong.
12.15 am
The precedent does not start with the teachers. It has been set before under the Government with the GCHQ dispute. The Government denied trade unionism and basic

civil liberties to the workers there. The Government are in the process of extending that. It is now the turn of the teachers and after that perhaps it will be the NHS workers or other groups of workers. The Government are adopting salami tactics in terms of their anti-civil-liberties, antidemocratic and anti-trade-union approach.
The truth is that the Secretary of State and his predecessor had ample opportunity to settle the long-running dispute, but they blew it because of their prevarication and refusal to settle and provide the right resources when they had the opportunity to do so. Now, they are blowing it because of their authoritarian presumptions and the tendency to take all powers to themselves. The Government are blowing it because of the 19 conditions that the Secretary of State sought to impose without any flexibility and because they are riding roughshod over the negotiating machinery. The Secretary of State could have settled the dispute, but he is now in danger of it running on and on.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend mentioned GCHQ. The Government have not been very successful there. I wonder whether there are lessons that should be learnt by GCHQ and whether they should not be making the same mistakes as they appear to be about to make with this Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not follow that line. We must stick to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Cohen: I accept that, Mr. Armstrong, and that is what I have been seeking to do. I shall not respond to that point.
Free collective bargaining and recognising the role of ACAS in settling a protracted dispute must be better than the Secretary of State taking all power to himself. The negotiated ACAS agreement shows that that formula works. That agreement introduced a system of appraisal of teachers for the first time, provided a detailed conditions of service agreement where none existed before, established a new negotiating machinery to replace Burnham, created a new salary structure for the profession and increased the salary levels to reward effective teaching. All that was in the ACAS agreement. It shows that free collective bargaining and ACAS involvement can work. That should be the approach adopted.
ACAS is essential. Calling in ACAS does not mean that the teachers will refuse to settle unless they get the kind of handouts that take place in the City. The London Evening Standard of 6 November states:
Former defence secretary Sir John Nott, chairman of merchant bankers, Lazards, doubled his salary to £366,436 last year.
I am sure that the teachers would settle for less than half that figure. Indeed, I am sure that they would settle for far less than the golden hellos of more than £100,000 that are now commonplace among merchant banks buying stockbrokers, jobbers and so on.
New clause 1 refers to the role of ACAS in determining pension arrangements. In answer to a written question recently, I was told that top civil servants now receive a pension of £26,000 and a lump sum of more than £77,000. One wonders what the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, will get when he goes. He may talk about economy with the truth in Australia, but there will be no economy with the public purse when he goes. No teacher


expects a salary, let alone a pension, like that, but ACAS should at least be able to help teachers in determining their pension arrangements.
The Secretary of State may impose his will this time round, but the dispute will still be brewing and boiling in the schools. The teachers' strong feelings about being underpaid will be compounded if the lid of the pressure cooker is screwed down and they are excluded from the negotiating process. That is bound to cause discontent and resentment, and I believe that further industrial action will be inevitable. The teachers themselves make that clear in their briefing to Parliament, when they say:
The Bill would seriously damage industrial relations. The Government is presenting this measure as a means of resolving the long-running teachers' pay dispute. Yet intervention of this kind is guaranteed to create disillusion in schools. With no avenue open for teachers to formulate aspirations and air grievances, this disillusion would simmer away in schools, leading to a de-motivated, unenthusiastic and uncommitted teaching force. If teachers are denied proper channels to enable their complaints to be redressed, such feelings would in due course be more likely to lead to increased disruption than any dissatisfaction that could arise from negotiating machinery.
Clearly, further industrial action is likely to result from the Government's treatment of teachers in the Bill.
The Government are being thoroughly cynical. They know that further industrial action is inevitable as a result of their proposals. They just hope that the Bill will delay it until after a general election. They will not have to worry about it then, because they will be in opposition. The only way forward must be direct negotiations and agreements freely reached with the help of ACAS. That is the only way in which our teachers and schools can get on with the essential job of educating the next generation for the benefit of the country. The Government's formula is one for chaos.

Mr. Clay: One of the fascinating things about this debate is that it is not that long ago that many of the arguments that are being advanced by Opposition Members were being made by Conservative Members. The debate is about an amendment concerning the role of ACAS and the Government's refusal to accept its role and the settlement negotiated through it.
I am on the moderate wing of the Labour movement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) can testify, because I sat on his general management committee for quite a time. He can vouch for the moderation of my views. There are people in the Labour movement and the trade union movement who, especially when they have been caught in a bitter dispute, have taken the view that ACAS is not necessarily always the best thing since sliced bread.
That view is probably less popular than it used to be, but some people think that agreements negotiated through ACAS are sometimes not as good as those that can be achieved by slogging it out with the employer. We do not have to look back far to discover how much the Government's attitude has changed. The only recent dispute which had a bigger impact than the teachers' dispute on British society was that of the National Union of Mineworkers. After a certain point in that dispute, Ministers argued time and again that the NUM and its supporters ought to take up the agreement negotiated through ACAS by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. What a change there has been!
Not long ago the Government were begging people on strike to accept an agreement that was negotiated through ACAS, as though it was the final arbiter of proper procedure and wisdom in disputes. In the Government's mind, its role was almost God-like. One could argue that the NACODS agreement has turned out to be worthless when it comes to stopping pit closures or, indeed, anything else, but the Government, who backed the National Coal Board, argued that people should accept what was negotiated through ACAS. Here, the Government are trying to deny what has been negotiated. They are even opposing an amendment which would recognise the work of ACAS and write into the Bill the negotiating machinery that ACAS was instrumental in negotiating.
As I am a moderate person, I have some knowledge of the way in which some people in the Labour movement think. It occurs to me that if I was a wild Trotskyite revolutionary who wanted to do a lecture at a weekend school for young comrades on the illusions of the parliamentary road to democracy, I could take as my text for the whole weekend the Government's conduct on the Bill and their attitude to the amendment. It would be a marvellous opportunity to argue that there is a great deal of cynicism about parliamentary democracy.
The Secretary of State was earlier abusing Burnham, as he usually does, saying that it was unsatisfactory that at one time the NUT had a clear majority on it, and asking what sort of way that was to do business. That is an interesting point. The Government have a majority in the House of Commons, and it is extraordinarily cynical of a Government who claim that Labour Members are subversives and do not respect parliamentary democracy, to say in effect, "Who cares whether someone has a majority? What does a majority matter?" If a majority does not matter, the Government have no legitimacy. This is an illustration the Government's attitude towards democracy.
12.30 am
In my experience as a trade unionist, I learnt that ACAS can be an extremely useful and important body, sometimes even if it is never involved in the dispute. Often, when trade unionists are faced with a problem they say, "Let us involve ACAS," just as employers often say that. However, if one cannot involve ACAS, and the possibility of ACAS solving the dispute is discredited, that will have not just the effects about which Labour Members have talked, in teaching, schools, industrial relations in schools and so on, but a much wider industrial effect.
In the future, anyone who suggests that ACAS does not have a solution and cannot settle the dispute, and perhaps it would be better to hold out for a different solution, will have a powerful argument. He will be able to say, "What is the point? After all those meetings, dragging through the weekends in London and Nottingham, balloting, conferences, and, finally accepting a negotiated agreement through ACAS, the Government just ripped it up and would not have it. What is the point of going to ACAS when the Government can deny and negate its efforts?"

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my hon. Friend accept that in most trade unions there are differences of opinion within the executive, with one group wanting to negotiate, and one group not wanting to negotiate? My hon. Friend is illustrating the way that the Government are giving extra strength to those within an executive who may not want to negotiate through ACAS.

Mr. Clay: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, because it will help me to move on. I do not want to take too much time. I was coming to that point.
There are differing views, not only within the teaching profession, but within the different teaching unions, about the agreement. No hon. Member would have to go far to verify this. One could do so by walking into a school and talking to the teachers there. I can remember being in a school the day after the agreement was reached and asking teachers what they thought about it and the division of agreement within that staff group. Some teachers—I am not saying that I endorse their attitude—felt that the employers' agreement was not sufficient and that after all the struggle, the fundamental demoralisation, the agony that had been caused, the disruption and the cruelty of the Government towards education, something better should have resulted.
I remember some people saying, "With a bit of luck, Baker will be daft enough to try to impose his own settlement on the profession and then we will be back in business, because he will not get away with it." I do not take any view about whether or not that is helpful, but by taking the attitude that they have done and by trying to discredit what ACAS has done, the Government are in many ways strengthening the hand of those who think that the employers' agreement was insufficient.
The Secretary of State, and indeed no Minister or Government Member, is naive enough, or, for that matter, cynical enough, to say that because of the closeness of the vote in the NUT those who voted against were in a sense saying that the employers' agreement gave them too much. Those who voted against the agreement were clearly saying that even the agreement reached with the employers with the assistance of ACAS was not sufficient. The Government are strengthening the hand of those people, and in a sense one could ask why we should intrude on that grief when the Government are taking that attitude.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) said, democracy is at the hub of this argument. This is a fundamentally undemocratic measure. It relates to the wider question of democracy in society and the legitimacy of Parliament, and seems an extraordinary way to deal with legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and some Government Members quoted the details of the agreement, and my hon. Friend spoke about what is denied by this clause. Those denials could be replaced if our amendment were accepted. Those speeches demonstrated the complexity of these negotiations and the sensitivity of industrial relations in education. It seems quite extraordinary that, in the light of all that complexity, the Government can legislate on a historic and constitutional matter without a White Paper or a Green Paper.
As an example for the class that one might hold if one were some wild-eyed revolutionary Trotskyist trying to demonstrate that in many ways the parliamentary process is a farce, one could have no better legislation. All that one would need to say was that when a Government are up against the wall and cannot get their own way, out goes all the nonsense about Green Papers, White Papers, consultation, hours during the night in Committee and lobbying. In two or three days flat, they just roll out their majority and steamroller the legislation through without consultation.
That attitude is increasingly consistent with other activities of the Government and, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Leyton said, it is in the tradition of what the Government did at GCHQ. I know that we must not stray into that, but the action of the Government there is relevant to the amendment, because the Government are taking away not only the right of local authorities to negotiate, but their financial freedom so that they cannot spend what they want on education.
In many ways, the Government have removed the freedom of speech. One of the interesting matters raised by the clause and by our amendment is that when one looks at the Government's employment legislation, one finds that the actions of many trade unionists in Britain will become more directly political. If the Bill is passed, the teachers unions will have no option other than direct conflict with the Government. If those unions are in dispute with the Government, they can either take strike action, causing disruption, or say openly that the Government are not prepared to deliver the pay and conditions that the teachers find necessary and call for the removal of the Government.
If the Bill is passed, the teachers unions will quickly organise political fund ballots. The teachers will probably vote overwhelmingly for such ballots because, as a result of other Government legislation, those unions will be unable to say anything in negotiations, because any disagreement with the Government could bring them in contempt of the employment legislation that has already been enacted. That is another interesting example of the Government's cynicism.
When the Government came to office they talked about rolling back the frontiers of the state. No Government have rolled in those frontiers more than this Government have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington said that there could not be anywhere else in the Western world where a Government could impose pay and conditions on trade unionists so directly without any proper consultation or negotiation. That may be so, because I have not studied the Western world in those terms, but I suspect that it is necessary to look to the German Democratic Republic, the Soviet Union, Hungary and other such countries for parallels. Some of my hon. Friends may disagree with me, but I am a moderate on these matters.
There is a word which is often used loosely between those on the Left in Britain, but it is appropriate to describe the nature of the Government and what they are doing. The word is Stalinism. The Government's aim is centralised state bureaucracy. The Conservative party deluded sufficient of the electorate to make them believe that it was opposed to such bureaucracy and that the Labour party and Labour-controlled local authorities stood for it. The Government have rejected ACAS, which is recognised as an impartial arbiter, a pressure valve and a means to avoid conflict. They have decided to impose pay and conditions willy-nilly, and they must be described as Stalinist.
There are many lessons that will be learnt from the Government's conduct. If they get away with the Bill, I dread to think—

Mr. Tony Banks: To judge from some of his recent comments, I agree that my hon. Friend is becoming dangerously moderate in his views. Does he agree that there are many Members in this place, primarily Labour Members, who believe that the Conservative party will go along with parliamentary


democracy only if it serves its interests, and that as soon as it appears to threaten the interests of the class that it represents, parliamentary democracy will be cast aside? Will he accept that there is an element of that attitude in the Bill?

Mr. Clay: My hon. Friend has made a useful intervention. It is not for me to refer to various political schools in explaining that view. It is extraordinary that the Government have provided such a classic textbook example to prove the validity of my hon. Friend's analysis of how society and this place work, how forces in society conflict and how conflicts are resolved, or not.
The Government are not entirely philosophically consistent. They want to impose state direction on teachers, yet at the same time, being the opportunists that they are, the Secretary of State for the Environment is saying to certain local authorities, "Why do you not tear up the national agreements with your employees other than teachers and negotiate locally?" How can a Government be so inconsistent in wanting to impose central pay and conditions on teachers, while encouraging local authorities to tear up national agreements? The answer lies in the balance of forces and not in a consistent industrial relations philosophy. It is about taking whatever opportunity is best to break trade unions and to impose the lowest possible pay and conditions.
12.45 am
If the trade unions can be opposed and broken on a local basis, that is what the Government are in favour of. If they have to take on the job themselves, they will do it in a central and state bureaucratic manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is quite right. This is about the Government using legislation only when it suits them to impose things that are in the interests of their class.

Mr. Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that as soon as parliamentary democracy stands in the way of the Conservative party, parliamentary democracy will go out of the window?

Mr. Clay: Indeed. Before my hon. Friend intervened I was about to make that point. If the Government get away with this, I dread to think what will be next. People have said of the Government, "They could not do that," yet a year or two later they have done it. People have then said, "Well, they have got away with that, but they would never go that far," yet they have. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If this Government are elected again—I am quite sure that they will not be—and if the present crisis conditions continue, many of which have been made worse by their own conduct as a Government, there are no lengths to which they will not go to impose their will in the interests of their class.

Mr. Banks: That will be so if the worst of all possible currencies takes place and the Conservative party wins the next general election. However, the more likely possibility is that the Labour party will win the next election. We shall then have an elected Socialist party committed to Socialist policies, and the Conservative party may attempt to undermine it. Are there not indications in the Bill that that attitude to a democratically elected Socialist Government would lead Conservatives to try to undermine them?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for

Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) will not be tempted to go too far down that road, as we are now straying too far from the amendment.

Mr. Clay: I accept what you say, Sir Paul. I realise that to give a full answer to the fascinating question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West would be to stray a little too far from the Bill. I shall therefore restrict my reply.
If, after a long dispute, an agreement between employers and trade unions negotiated through ACAS — which included future negotiating machinery that replaced the machinery that the Government wanted to see the back of—was ripped up by the Government, who said, "We shall impose our own settlement," many people would say, "Even Tories do not do that." We have learnt that they do. Therefore, the point made by my hon. Friend is very worrying. He is saying that if this Government were re-elected — which is totally improbable—we would see quite terrifying things, and this Bill is terrifying enough. It sends a cold chill up one's spine to think that this Government have such contempt for democracy, as exemplified by their attitude in the Bill, that even when we have a Socialist Government who are trying to undertake a Socialist reconstruction of society they are likely to get up to such antics.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am sorry that I did not hear all the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I have just returned from the picket line at the Wapping print dispute—

Mr. Forth: Are they still there?

Mr. Corbyn: I witnessed an example of oppressive government. The Government pay thousands of police to keep 5,000 people out of work. They have such inadequate industrial relations legislation that a private sector employer is allowed to dismiss people at will.
The Government's attitude to ACAS over the teachers' pay dispute, and over education disputes generally in the last five years, shows that they are trying to establish the rule of the jungle in the public sector. They openly applaud the rule of the jungle in the private sector and they are prepared to pay for a private army—the police force—to support the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

Mr. Clay: I take the point. My hon. Friend is saying that there is nothing consistent in the Government's attitude other than their wish to oppose trade unionists and to strengthen employers' hands. They argue that black is white on one occasion and that white is white on another. Not long ago Ministers and Government Back Benchers asked us, "Why do you not accept ACAS? Why do the miners not accept the NACODS agreement?" That agreement was negotiated through ACAS. The Government said that it was the most wonderful agreement then, but it was not worth much. Not long ago the Government said that ACAS had achieved a wonderful agreement—although it was worthless—and now the Government say that they are not interested in the agreement. They want to keep ACAS out and to have the right to impose conditions directly.
I return to what I was about to say when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West made his helpful intervention about more philosophical matters.


The Bill is a classic illustration of the Government's cynicism. The parliamentary system is shown to be worthless when the Government put on their big boots and put the boot into the trade unions. It is a classic text for those who argue that the issue is about the class war. This Government use this place as a convenience so that they can put rubber stamps on aims which they cannot achieve by other means. It is ironic, but that is a lesson to those who argue that that is the nature of society.
If I were the Stalinist that I described earlier, and if I did not take the view that I do of places such as the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland I would suggest that we have heard much about spies, KGB agents and double agents in recent weeks, and I believe that we would be talking not only about the former head of MI6 and Lord Rothschild, but about people on the Government Front Bench. They have, in many senses, justified the Marxist analysis of class war more successfully than any of my hon. Friends could have done.

Mrs. Rumbold: It may be convenient if I intervene now. We have had some interesting speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), though his contribution was slightly inaccurate.
The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) raised four issues. He said that we were discussing ACAS negotiated agreements which were brought about, in part, because the pay of teachers had fallen behind that of other groups. The Government have largely recognised that. There is on the table an average pay rise of 16·4 per cent. on top of the 7 per cent. awarded at the end of March. Together they add up to a rise of 25 per cent. for the 18 months to October 1987.
No one has objected to the additional sum of £600 million for teachers. It seems to be a generally agreed and acceptable figure. It is helpful to point that out. However, my right hon. Friend has said—and I believe that most people think that he is being reasonable—that there must be something in return for that large sum of money.
For a number of years I and others tried to get conditions of service discussed at the same time as pay rises. Conditions had to be brought into the package and a clear definition of a teacher's job and a structure with sufficient incentive posts seems a reasonable return for that money.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Minister explain what detailed differences she sees between the 13-point agreement at ACAS and the 19 points that the Secretary of State insisted on? We might then be able better to understand what more she feels should be given in return for the £600 million.

Mrs. Rumbold: I was about to come to that matter. My right hon. Friend has recognised that useful progress has been made in recent months during the long, drawn-out negotiations between the employers and the unions. He has made that plain to the House on a number of occasions and did so on Monday this week and on 27 November. We welcome the emergence of a clear definition of the teacher's job.

Mr. Hunter: I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend is saying. It is worth stressing, because the Opposition often

say that if the money now on offer had been made available some months ago we would not have reached the present situation. However, the essential point is that if we had injected that money some months ago we would not have been able to renegotiate the contractual side of teachers' obligations. The money is on offer because there has been movement in the negotiations on contracts.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is exactly right. He makes an important point, because teachers need to know what is a reasonable expectation for their day-to-day work, head teachers and local authorities need to know that there is no doubt about what can be expected from teachers under their contracts and parents need to be assured that teachers will be fully committed to the education of their children.
The teacher's working year was agreed at 195 days, which gave days five more than the pupil year for in-service training and other activities that are essential to the smooth running of schools and the career development of individual teachers. It has also been agreed that teachers should be available for work at the direction of the head for 1,265 hours a year. That is not a full statement of the professional teaching commitment, but I am told, and I believe, that many teachers devote many more hours to pupil assessment, lesson preparation, and so on. The 1,265 hours represent the amount of time during the year when head teachers will be able to call upon teachers for teaching, meetings, pupil supervision, and other activities that necessarily may have to be undertaken at specified times.
1 am
The Bill represents an extremely positive set of benefits for employers, teachers and schools. My right hon. Friend has fully recognised that fact. There are no differences. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, it is significant that the Bill has come about through a long, drawn-out period.

Mr. Radice: Negotiation.

Mrs. Rumbold: Not really negotiation. One has to remember, as I tried to remind the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), that the original suggestions for a set of teachers' conditions came from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) some months ago.

Mr. Radice: No, it did not. It came from the employers long before that.

Mrs. Rumbold: The 19 points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East put on the table essentially became the points that were worked on by the employers and the unions during many discussions over some years.

Mr. George Howarth: I did not disagree with their origin. Others would know better than I do. I pointed out that the Bill prejudices the potential for agreement.

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall refer to that point. It is important for Opposition Members to recognise that this has come about not because one or two people sat down and thought about this matter over the past six or nine months. It has been a long, slow, drawn-out process of drawing the unions, I regret to say, to the point at which it had to be agreed that the conditions of service must be included in the discussions about pay.

Mr. Radice: Of course it has been a long, drawn-out process. It is a process of negotiation and acceptance. It is true that the trade unions have moved a long way. I acknowledge that the former Secretary of State played a part. I think the hon. Lady mentioned the fact that, in 1984, the local authorities put forward their own opinions about what they thought should be done by teachers. Their 13 points have been accepted in the ACAS agreement. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree with that.

Mrs. Rumbold: The conditions of service have been worked out over a long period. They were worked out by employers, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, and also, to a certain extent, by trade unions. There is no disagreement about this matter or about my right hon. Friend being grateful and glad that this has come to pass. Because he has a duty to provide sensible education, he must secure for the teaching profession, to his satisfaction, not only conditions of service and reasonable pay, but something that he considers essential — a clear definition of the structure with sufficient incentive posts.
We have heard a great deal of discussion about the imposition of the ACAS agreement. Amendment No. 4 seeks to replace the discredited Burnham machinery. We have heard from many hon. Members that the Burnham machinery was no longer satisfactory. I remind Opposition Members that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that on a number of occasions the Remuneration of Teachers Act was placed before various Secretaries of State. It was suggested that they should carefully consider the machinery, because it no longer seemed to work. Indeed, I remember leading such a delegation to one Secretary of State and suggesting that the Remuneration of Teachers Act was no longer a suitable way of negotiating pay and conditions of service because, in those days, we could not touch the teachers' conditions of service. We are not talking about anything new.
The amendment seeks to replace the discredited Burnham machinery with what is contained in the ACAS agreement, which, we are told, has been signed by a majority of the employers and four of the six unions. Of course, the Committee is aware that two of those signatories—the Secondary Heads Association and the Professional Association of Teachers—have pulled out of the deal. The National Association of Head Teachers was not a signatory. Both head teachers associations, representing those who have to manage the schools, have less faith in the structure which is being considered than Labour Members, who will not have to suffer from it. Two of the six unions remain inside the ACAS agreement. Even if the hon. Member for Durham, North is correct in assuming that balloting of the AMMA and the NUT will make it possible for them to say that a majority of teachers favour the deal, the majority of unions are clearly not in favour of it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear to the Committee why the Government find the proposals which are on the table unacceptable. Our reasons are centred on cost and the absence of a proper promotion structure for the teaching profession.

Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Lady is so confident about the views of teachers on the Government's proposals, will she or the Secretary of State ballot all teachers and let them

judge whether the Secretary of State has got it right? He will not, because he knows that teachers would overwhelmingly reject his proposals.

Mrs. Rumbold: Sadly, my right hon. Friend does not have the power to ballot the teachers. Only the trade unions have that power.

Mr. Radice: Do not disparage their ballots.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend has just been challenged to ballot the teachers. I have no doubt that, if he had the power, he would be only too willing to ballot individual schools. That would be much to his liking and would be very much in the interests of the world at large.

Mr. Fisher: There are plenty of opportunities in this place, or in another place, to table a new clause to give the Secretary of State powers. The Opposition would not oppose such a new clause. We would be extremely interested to see what a ballot on this issue would reveal. We would assure a fair hearing and passage for such a new clause. I challenge the Government to table that new clause if they are so confident of their views.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would love to challenge me to table all sorts of new clauses, but at the moment I am busy answering the debate. It would probably be beneficial if I continued to do so.
There are cost difficulties. There is a substantial sum which the agreement includes and which is not acceptable to the Government. There are several other loose ends and obscurities. The key points of the proposed new negotiating machinery are not clear. The largest head teachers union favours separate arrangements for the head teachers. That is not directly dealt with in the ACAS document. Pay is to be statutory, but apparently conditions are not. That risks plunging us all back into the morass of local disputes on conditions of service. Local authorities are to incorporate the new conditions of service in teachers' contracts, but there is silence on the enforcement of contracts by the local education authorities. To put it at its lowest, there is room for doubt over local negotiation of elements of the proposed contract.
The major omission in the ACAS document is the role of the Government. Paragraph 7.4 of the ACAS document states:
The parties will seek discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new machinery.
But paragraph 7.3 of the document states that the national joint council proposed by ACAS would be composed of employers and unions. "Employers" means the local authorities, so it is hard to see what significant role is envisaged for the Government. In a sense, the Government have a role, because they fund the local authority employers to the tune of 46·4 per cent. That may not seem an enormous proportion to some people, but it represents a substantial proportion of the total amount that is spent by local authorities on paying teachers. Since we are talking about the amount of money that is spent by local authorities on the education service, I suppose that it is not disputed that a substantial amount of the rate support grant given to local authorities goes to the education service.
It is well known that the education authorities absorb an enormous amount of the rate support grant. That is perfectly acceptable, but it is a fact that must be


recognised. It must also be recognised that the Government, who foot the bill, should have a firm and clear role in any negotiating machinery that decides on the pay of teachers. A role confined to picking up the tab for any agreement is not acceptable. Since 1944, Governments have had power to contain the cost of school teachers' pay, which is now well over £5 billion. I doubt whether any Government would be willing to cede their right to have a voice in a negotiated agreement on the year-on-year arrangements for teachers' pay.
From 1965, a concordat between the Government and local authorities operated, giving the Government a weighted vote on the Burnham management panel and a veto over total cost. That operated very well until 1985, when it was unilaterally repudiated by the employers. Since then we have had 18 months of unsatisfactory negotiation and unjustifiable disruption in our schools. This wonderland of unrealistic negotiations simply cannot continue. The Bill restores a proper role for the Government in teachers' pay negotiations and links that to the duties and responsibilities of teachers for the first time.
The amendment is a recipe for further chaos picked out from the ramshackle agreement, which commands limited support, and which has been swallowed lock, stock and barrel by Opposition Members. In the interests of the children in our schools, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Madden: At the heart of tonight's debate, as at the heart of all our debates on education during the past two years, lie the proper salaries needed to recruit, retain and motivate teachers. Like many hon. Members, I have had conversations with teachers. One—a head of an upper school in my constituency—was deeply worried about the education that he could offer the children in his school. He contrasted two appointments: one for a managerial post in the youth training service in Bradforrd, which attracted more than 80 applicants, and two teaching posts in his school, both of which were nationally advertised. he received one application for one post and no applications for the other. Both those posts carried salaries of about £7,000 a year.
The second conversation that I had today was with a teacher who was an NUT representative, who told me bluntly that if the Government and those who support them in their activities think that they will bring early peace to the classrooms of Britain, they are not only fooling themselves, but attempting to fool Britain's parents and public.
1.15 am
I believe what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and many others have said about the corporatist nature of the Bill. Mussolini would have been proud of it because we have here a Secretary of State, a Minister of the Crown, seeking to take unto himself highly centralised powers over the education service. We have a Secretary of State who wants to end the bargaining rights of teachers to negotiate their salaries and conditions of service. We have a Secretary of State who only a few days ago was talking about his ambition to set a national curriculum for the children in Britain's schools. We have a Secretary of State who recently announced 20 city technology colleges which he hopes to establish in

inner cities throughout Britain. Those colleges, if they come, will cream off the most talented children and staff and in my part of the world they will find great difficulty in getting private industry to find the millions of pounds necessary to establish those colleges.
My constituents want the Government to put available resources into the maintained sector. They want pupil-teacher ratios reduced. They want the fabric of the schools improved and the quality of education substantially improved. They do not want this highly centralised corporatist legislation which will not bring peace to our schools and will do nothing to improve the quality of education which our children receive at school.
The Government are deliberately seeking to provoke substantial numbers of parents into declaring war on teachers. That is what they have been about. It was revealed earlier today that the Government are so fearful of teachers because they have launched sustained action over two years in pursuit of reasonable salaries to recruit, retain and motivate teachers.
The Government are confused and frightened and do not know what to do in the face of the challenge that they have received from Britain's teachers. Therefore, the Government have chosen to use the legislation to intimidate teachers, to drive them to accept an enforced pay settlement.

Mr. Hunter: As a former schoolteacher, I feel obliged to dispute profoundly the hon. Gentleman's underlying point. What the Government are now doing is precisely what he demanded in his opening comments—to attract, retain and motivate teachers. That can only be done by the sort of measure that my right hon. Friend is seeking to implement.

Mr. Madden: This is the second occasion—

Mr. Hunter: The fourth.

Mr. Madden: This is the fourth occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has intervened and on each occasion he has reminded us that he was a teacher. I understand that he was a teacher at Harrow.

Mr. Hunter: I remind the hon. Gentleman that during my brief interim at Harrow school the staff did not benefit from Burnham scale salaries.

Mr. Madden: The hon. Gentleman's intervention epitomises the lack of understanding by this Government and the Conservative party of the education that the majority of children in this country receive. It stems from the fact that the Conservative party does not understand or use our education system. Therefore, it is fundamentally uninterested in and disregards the education that the majority of our children receive. The Opposition want to give children the most decent start in life that we can provide for them. That is why we oppose this measure. It will do nothing to improve the quality of education for the vast majority of our children. It will not help to recruit and retain teachers and motivate them to provide the best possible education for our children. The Government are confused and frightened. They do not know how to handle the situation with which they are confronted.

Mr. Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the effect on the teaching profession and upon teachers in general, but does he not agree that this is a very serious matter? The Government are taking centralised control over an industrial dispute. It is exactly the kind of control


that they could take in any other circumstances, if they were allowed to get away with it, by imposing wage settlements, in just the same way as they have taken away the safety net of minimum wage legislation. It will have serious consequences for industrial relations in every industry and in every profession.

Mr. Madden: Indeed. Because of the factors to which my hon. Friend has referred, very many other workers in the public sector are extremely concerned about this measure. They regard it as a threat to them. They, too, fear that their bargaining rights will be taken away. It is no use the Government saying that that is a fanciful suggestion. We need only to look back to GCHQ where the Government took away the right of people to enjoy trade union membership.
In this measure the Government are displaying their anti-trade union posture. This Secretary of State for Education and Science will seek publicly to deny that. Many references have been made to the Secretary of State as a man of sweet reasonableness, as the man with the smiling mask, but behind that smiling mask is a person with centralist ambitions. He wants to set a national curriculum, and before long he will want to appoint every headmaster and to take more and more powers unto himself. That is how this Government seek to control something which they do not know how to handle.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On my hon. Friend's point about the so-called sweet reasonableness of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, does my hon. Friend realise that there is something else about this Bill that has to be noted? Having made a minor improvement to his standing inside the Tory party, the Secretary of State—looking to the time when the Prime Minister has gone, and coming from what is loosely regarded as the "wet" side of the Tory party, although many of us on this side of the House would say that there is not a gnat's whisker between any of them—is using the Bill to impose a settlement in order to try to improve his virility symbolism within the Tory party so that he will get the votes after the Tory party has got rid of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State is prepared to scupper the Burnham negotiating machinery in order to try to look after No. 1 at a later date.

Mr. Madden: As always, there is a great deal in my hon. Friend's speculation on this point. Parents recognise that although for two years the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) told us that absolutely no money was available to resolve the teachers' dispute, this Secretary of State remarkably quickly found substantial additional resources to offer the teachers. Unfortunately, instead of adding a little bit to those additional resources and allowing proper negotiations to proceed, he has sought to confront the teachers by introducing the measure, which has been deliberately designed to enable the Secretary of State to enforce a pay settlement upon the teachers.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the charm of the Secretary of State may well have got through to a few journalists in the Murdoch empire, but I hear that it is fading fast in Mole Valley, where all this week the local newspapers have carried as a headline a statement by the

prospective Labour candidate, Mr. Chris King, condemning what the Government are doing, and in particular the Secretary of State's role in attacking teachers in his constituency?

Mr. Madden: I said that the second conversation that I have had with teachers today included a warning that if the measure were enacted, and if a pay settlement were imposed, it would do nothing to bring peace to our classrooms. I should like to read an extract from a letter written by Ian Murch and Howard Roberts, both NUT executive members for west Yorkshire:
This 'realistic choice' that we are being offered is between having our throats cut by Kenneth Baker or agreeing to cut them ourselves. Under either plan we agree to the abolition of teaching as a profession in return for pitiful amounts of money. Weakness encourages bullies, and the 'realism' we are asked to endorse will encourage Baker to press on with the abolition of collective bargaining over teachers' pay and conditions rather than appease him.
The real alternative is what it always was—a decent rise for the job that teachers do now.
That is a fair statement of the view held by a large majority of teachers. What they want is a decent rise for the job that they now do. They want a decent salary that will be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate teachers. They want resources to be put into the education service so that the problem of the crumbling schools in my constituency and my city can be tackled urgently. They want more resources to be put into the education service so that more good teachers can be appointed and so that we can reduce the size of classes. We want more resources so that children in constituencies such as mine can be given the equipment that they desperately need, and so that they can be given a half decent start in life.
That is what the people want. That is what the parents want. That is what the children want. They do not want this corporatist nonsense that will put off the day to which we can look forward, when peace comes to our classrooms. The responsibility for that lies squarely with the Secretary of State and with the Government. If they steamroller the legislation through the House in the way that they now propose, I am certain that they will live to rue the day.

Dr. Marek: I listened with interest to the Minister as she wound up the debate. I noted four things that she said.
First, the hon. Lady said that the majority of the teachers might support the deal by ACAS, but the majority of unions do not. What type of democracy is that? I thought that the Conservative party would be committed to one person, one vote, but apparently that is not so. When it suits the Government, they are prepared to waive the rules a little and abide by some other rules.
The hon. Lady then said that at last there will be a proper role for the Government in the determination of teachers' pay. I doubt whether it will be a proper role. It will be the whole role, and no one else will have any role at all. The most interesting was thing that she said that the Secretary of State had no powers to order a ballot on the Government's 19 points and pay scales and that she would be delighted if the Secretary of State had that power because she was sure that he would like to hold a ballot. There are ways of organising a ballot without necessarily giving the Secretary of State powers to do it. We would have to oversee it to ensure that it was right, but a ballot could be arranged by all the teachers on the basis of one person, one vote, to see whether the Government's


preferred solution is the one that they favour, or whether they favour the ACAS deal. I somehow suspect that we will not get much from the Government on that.

Mr. Corbyn: What my hon. Friend is saying is interesting. From my knowledge of teachers in my constituency, I know that what he has said is correct, in that the teachers are extremely unhappy, worried and frustrated. The most interesting feature of the teachers' dispute in the past year and a half has been the unstinting support of large groups of parents around the country for the teachers' general case that they are underpaid, that they are being badly treated by the Government, that they are trying to improve the education service and that the real enemy of the education service is the Minister who was sitting on the Government Front Bench, but he has fled already.

Dr. Marek: That is a good point. I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a big well opened up underneath the Government's feet and they all fell in, we would have much more success in education in this country.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Does my hon. Friend recall that the year before the six metropolitan counties and the Greater London council were abolished there was an opportunity for an election for councillors to those authorities which would have given the people living in those areas the opportunity to express a view about abolition? Does he further recall who was the Minister of State, Department of the Environment at that time and who led for the Conservative party on the Bill for abolition? It was the same man who has proved, once again, that he is not a democrat and that he is totally against the ballot box. He was against the ballot box for the abolition of the metropolitan councils and the GLC, and he has not been in favour of one person, one vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has suggested, to enable the teachers to express a view. The people were not allowed to express a view then, and the teachers are not being allowed to express a view now. It is no coincidence that the Secretary of State for Education and Science was the Minister of State, Department of the Environment at that time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will not be tempted in extending the debate. We must stick to the Bill and this amendment.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for your advice. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) for making that comment. In obedience to your strictures, Sir Paul, I shall say nothing about that, but the House has heard what my hon. Friend had to say.
The Minister of State said that the agreement is ramshackle. I have the agreement before me. It is quite lengthy and it goes into a lot of detail. I do not understand in what ways it is ramshackle. I am tempted to go through it in detail and invite the Minister at appropriate times to point out the ramshackle bits of it.

Mr. Gerald Birmingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the definition of ramshackle applies

to the sections with which the Minister does not agree and which do not support her point of view? In those circumstances, the Government will seek to use any superfluous and almost asinine phrase in order to attack it.

Dr. Marek: I hope that it was just a throwaway phrase that was given to the Minister by her advisers sitting in the Box, without proper consideration.

Mr. Boyes: During the Minister's speech I was studying a certain part of the Bill because I shall be making a contribution to the debate. Therefore, I am not exactly sure of the context in which she used the word "ramshackle". It would help if my hon. Friend would remind us, because a few minutes have gone by since the hon. Lady sat down. Will my hon. Friend put the word into context?

Dr. Marek: The Minister was urging us not to support the amendment because it was based on a ramshackle agreement. The Minister nods, so that was the sense of it. I believe that that view is quite wrong, so it may be worth delving into the matter a little further.

Mr. Cohen: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister intervened earlier to claim that certain elements of the agreement were there only because the Government wanted them there as part of their 19 points? If that is so, the hon. Lady cannot then claim that it is a ramshackle agreement.

Dr. Marek: The more we consider the Minister's comments, the more we become aware of the inconsistencies in the Government's position. My hon. Friend is right. The Minister cannot have it both ways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, the unions have moved a long way on this. In the light of what has been said, it may be useful to read out the Minister's 19 points and consider to what extent the agreement satisfies them.

Mr. Corbyn: It is clearly essential to go into the detail of the agreement. Is my hon. Friend aware that in education and in local government generally there are many other agreements between employing authorities and trade unions representing manual grades, white collar grades, teachers, and so on? If the principle behind the clause is the imposition of a pay settlement on the teachers, the same could be done for any other freely negotiated agreement between local authority employers and employees, giving the Secretary of State the power to veto any agreement over and above national agreements in those sectors. If the Bill goes through, chaos could ensue in industrial relations throughout local government.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill will not solve the problems of the teaching profession. It will make them much worse.
I am conscious of the time that we have taken so far. We have taken about nine hours to get halfway through the second group of amendments. At that rate, we shall be here for another hundred hours.

Mr. Corbyn: It is going to be a cold night for the Minister.

Dr. Marek: I hope that we shall make more rapid progress as the night goes on. If not, we shall lose not only


Thursday and Friday's business but also the Consolidated Fund Bill debate on Monday. I shall therefore try to speed up my remarks.
The amendment seeks to replace the blanket powers given to the Secretary of State by some form of control. It is always dangerous to give blanket powers to one person. I should like to hear any Conservative Member try to defend the kind of blanket power that is given to the Secretary of State by the Bill.

Mr. Forth: indicated dissent.

Dr. Marek: I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman can tell us how that blanket power is restrained or curtailed in the Bill, because I cannot see any restraint on it at all.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill has been approached in a dictatorial manner, in that most Bills go into Committee upstairs, as will the Criminal Justice Bill tomorrow? The Government seem to want to take dictatorial powers and use their vast majority to deny ordinary Members the right to disagree at length and at leisure.

Mr. Forth: What is the hon. Gentleman doing now?

Dr. Marek: I do not know whether I can help my hon. Friend, because this is a Committee of the whole House.
I wonder why the Government are rushing forward now, after two years of delay as they put it. They have suddenly introduced this draconian Bill which gives the Secretary of State blanket powers. Apparently no more delay can be tolerated. The Secretary of State must have his powers, and he will not even think of accepting the amendment.

Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend was present earlier when I touched on these matters for a few minutes. Does he remember my saying that we should be wary of being too critical of the fact that the Secretary of State is rushing the Bill through because it will be a useful precedent for a future Labour Government who want to tackle the problems of mass unemployment, decaying housing, low living standards and inadequate pensions? Such a Government may wish to get through in two sittings legislation which helps working people.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We really must stick to the amendment.

Dr. Marek: In view of what you have said, Sir Paul, I shall not comment on what my hon. Friend has said, but the House has heard him.
What the Government are proposing is not a solution. Even 15 years ago, the teaching profession was held in high esteem. People looked up to teachers and thought that they were doing a good and necessary job that was essential if this industrialised nation was to stay at the forefront of technology. Is it not strange that teachers have lost that esteem and professional image? That would not be a party political point but for the fact that it has happened since the Government came to power. We now find that we are quibbling about hours of work outside teaching, dinner duties and marking homework. What have we come to?
There has been a sad decline, and I regret it. When I was at school, teachers did their job and were paid reasonably for it. If they were not, they did not complain. Hon Members may be able to explain that. There is clearly

something wrong, and the Government cannot absolve themselves of responsibility, because they have been in office since 1979. They have not been a moderate consensus Government but an extremist Rightist Government.

Mr. Nellist: Raving Rightist.

Dr. Marek: I shall stick to "extremist Rightist" because that sums them up well. They have made their mark on how the country regards itself, its wealth and how much it can produce. As part of this, they have made their mark on the teaching profession and on the standards and quality of education.
I shall not run down the human race, and certainly not teachers, who battle against all the odds in trying to do a job, and now have to battle hard just to stand still. In many cases, because of the Government's actions, they are slowly being sucked backwards, in spite of their desire to do a proper job.
I should like to return to the situation of 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but the Government are not going about it in the right way. They would if they accepted the amendment, because ACAS would be concerned, and any agreement—if would have to be an agreement—going into the details of terms and conditions of work and remuneration would be freely entered into. If the Government do not accept the amendment, the Secretary of State will, by diktat, be able to impose his will. That will not solve anything.
1.45 am
ACAS is seen to be impartial, which is part of the ILO convention to which some of us referred. If it were involved in the talks, the teaching profession would be confident that it was not about to be sold down the river in any negotiations, that any agreement would be carried out fairly, and that there would be no hidden Government agenda. All too often, the Government have hidden agendas. We do not know what the Government intend. The Bill does not tell us what the Secretary of State intends.
To be fair, we have a press release from the Department of Education and Science, dated 31 October 1986, entitled,
Kenneth Baker's 16 per cent. pay offer to teachers.
It is not about the pay offer, but is about the 19 points and conditions. I shall develop my argument about what will happen if the Government get their way over the Bill by referring to the salary scales contained in the press release and those in the ACAS agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North referred to them earlier.
With the ACAS agreement, the main professional grade starts at £9,970 and goes up to £15,058, whereas the Secretary of State's nine-point scale starts at £7,900 and goes up to £12,700. Clearly, teachers will not have as much job satisfaction from their remuneration if they accept the Government's scale. That starts about £2,000 lower and finishes about £2,400 lower.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if one pays peanuts, one gets monkeys? Is not the tragedy of the teaching profession that, by and large, over the past 20 or 30 years there has been a failure to recognise that teachers are a valuable part of our society and to remunerate them properly? Is the Secretary of State not going back to the poor law type state of the 1890s and 1910s, when teachers were improperly remunerated? This was further compounded by the Governments of 1951 to


1963, when the average pay for teachers fell far behind the general norm and people were driven, by sheer economic need, from the teaching profession, with the result that students and pupils were not given the benefit of the education facilities that were available. Until the Secretary of State recognises that a teacher is worthy of his hire and ought to be properly remunerated, our educational standards will continue to fall below those in Europe.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is basically right. I am not sure that I agree that our teachers are monkeys, but I am sure that he did not mean that.

Mr. David Harris: Disgraceful.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Gentleman who made that sedentary intervention can intervene or make a speech and I am sure that it will be interesting to hear what he had to say. I look forward to that.

Mr. Chris Smith: I shall not interrupt any longer than necessary the flow of my hon. Friend's admirable speech. He is right to identify the information given by the Secretary of State in his press release about levels of remuneration upon which he is likely to insist if the Bill is passed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the central problem with the Bill is that, although the Secretary of State has said what he is likely to do in the immediate future, we have no information about what he is likely to do after that? The Bill proposes to give him wide-ranging powers and there is no information about teachers' remuneration in the years to 1990 and possibly beyond.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. This is basically an enabling Bill, which gives the Secretary of State total power. We have a hint of what will happen and I shall develop that in detail later. We can compare the two pay scales and make our own deductions about what is likely to happen.

Mr. Nellist: Is my hon. Friend aware that since this debate started, Labour has apparently gained five points in the opinion polls? Does he think that the late arrival of the Prime Minister shows some panic on the Treasury Bench?

Dr. Marek: I do not want to stray from the amendment, but the news about the opinion polls has cheered me up. We have been losing a few points recently and I am glad that we have got them back and a few more.

Mr. Skinner: There could well be another reason why the Prime Minister is here. Perhaps she has been tipped off that the closure is about to be moved. I hope that is not the case, because I want to speak. I hope that her entrance does not mean that we will shortly have a vote, but I notice that the Tory Benches have filled rapidly in the last few minutes.

Dr. Marek: Is my hon. Friend asking me to speed up?

Mr. Skinner: No.

Dr. Marek: I should like to return to the question of pay scales. The simple, straightforward main scales suggested in the ACAS agreement and those suggested by the Secretary of State are not at all the same. Of course, there are premium payments for teachers who take extra responsibilities and for teachers who do the job well, but

I object to a system in which that plays a large part in how we pay a profession. Instead of trying to do the job well, the way they want to do it, teachers will look to the headmaster to see if he will recommend them for promotion or if he will give them some other sort of recommendation which will enable them to get an increase based on merit.

Mr. Bermingham: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to me again. Does he accept that my earlier comment was the usage of an old phrase and in no way implied any disrespect for the teaching profession for which I have the greatest admiration? Does he agree that if we adopt a merit points system—[Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State chattering. If he want to intervene he can do so. Leaving that aside, does my hon. Friend agree that a merit points system would tend to make teachers seek to please rather than seek to teach, which would be detrimental to the education system?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes the point for me. That is a serious criticism that can be made of the Secretary of State's thinking, as far as he has gone, as set out in his press release in October. Surely we want a profession in which teachers are prepared to work extra hours if they feel that children need them to do so. We used to have a profession where that happened, and I am sorry to say that there has been a degeneration. That is because teachers are worried about the minutiae of conditions of service, employment and remuneration. This is sad, because the more time the profession spends worrying about such matters the less time it has to teach children. The more time it spends worrying about minutiae, the lower morale becomes.
The profession worries about these matters only when it thinks that there is cause for concern, when it thinks that remuneration is not what it should be, or when it thinks that terms and conditions of employment are not quite right, and when things are not quite right, teachers worry and their morale sinks. One of my criticisms of the Government is that they have caused that to happen to teachers and to many others across the public sector.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Dr. Marek: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington.

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend may not be aware that for about a dozen years I worked in schools. I found that many extremely well qualified teachers were working hard and being under-remunerated. Since 1979, when I became involved in full-time politics, no other group of workers has lobbied me more than teachers, and it is clear that teachers' morale is at an all-time low. They have been messed around by the Government over pay and conditions. They have been asked to work in buildings that are virtually falling down. The Government have not provided money to improve our schools. Moneys for materials and the financing of new schemes have been cut. Teachers are fed up to the back teeth. The Secretary of State is back in his place—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have not been away.

Mr. Boyes: The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when I reminded the House that he would not


allow elections to take place when he was abolishing the met counties and the GLC. It is clear that the Government do not like ballot-box democracy.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Dr. Marek: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
I wish to make two serious points. First, we do not want a teaching profession that spends its time worrying about matters other than teaching. Secondly, we want a profession that has high morale.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an important and serious contribution. In speaking about the way in which teachers have to go about their work. His comments about their salaries and conditions of work are correct. Another serious problem is the condition of schools and the financing of education as a whole. This is not related exactly to clause 1 but it comes within the purview of conditions of work. There is an increasing involvement in financial administration and the social problems that come from the cuts—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a debate on the ACAS agreement and pay and not conditions in schools.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Sir Paul. Is not the question of conditions in schools inextricably linked with teachers' conditions, as they cannot teach without such conditions being involved?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have made it clear that conditions in schools are out of order on this amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman a ruling and I hope that he will not dispute it.

Dr. Marek: You are quite right, Sir Paul, in that the ACAS agreement relates mainly to remuneration, but it also refers to terms and conditions of service. I take it that in referring to remuneration, you included the additional aspects mentioned in the ACAS agreement.

2 am

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that many teachers are extremely concerned about the prospect of conditions of service agreement being vetoed and national conditions of service being imposed by the Secretary of State because of the inextricable link with public spending cuts on education, the way they affect the schools and the difficulties in which teachers are placed because of those cuts?

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Of course the morale is interrelated, and everything affects the way in which a teacher carries out his job.

Mr. Boyes: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 3.1.3(iii)(b) on page 3 of the ACAS agreement which deals with the contractual limitations on teachers' workload. It uses the phrase:
and improve in particular physical standards of provision".
Surely my hon. Friend will agree that pay and conditions are relevant as they are included in the agreement, and I am absolutely sure that the phrase I have quoted opens the

debate to include conditions in schools. I shall ask my hon. Friend to give way again on this very point after he has developed his argument further.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will accept my ruling and will stick to the amendment.

Dr. Marek: I do not intend to make a long speech, so I shall not reply to what my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington said. I hope that he catches the eye of the Chair later so that he can make his own speech and raise those points, which are pertinent to the extent that they are interrelated within the whole subject.
There is a problem about the different amounts of money available and the difference between the cost of the two schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North put forward a solution whereby the more expensive deal could be delayed by about two months so that the gap could be narrowed. Such a solution would be preferable to throwing away the ACAS agreement and relying on the Secretary of State's preferred scheme.
In drawing up his scheme, did the right hon. Gentleman speak to any teacher representatives or to any teachers? He might have talked to the National Association of Head Teachers. It would have been better if he had explained why he preferred his scheme to the scheme worked out by ACAS. If he talked only to the Treasury, there cannot be that much difference between us. The Secretary of State should not then mind implementing the ACAS agreement, possibly delaying it a month or two.

Mr. Bermingham: I am puzzled. How does my hon. Friend calculate a teacher's remuneration when the classroom is dripping? In my constituency some schools are cold because of heating problems and there is a shortage of books. How does one calculate rates of pay for teachers who have to work in such conditions, when for other teachers conditions are ideal? Working conditions must affect the knowledge that a teacher imparts.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. Environment has a bearing on performance. If the amendment were accepted and ACAS were able to dwell on such matters, we could take account of environment. I should like teachers to receive the same salary for the same job in conditions up to minimum standards. That is not possible at present, but that does not mean that it cannot happen in future. We should not be content with deteriorating buildings.
It is not in the interests of children to have teachers whose promotion relies upon their being nice to their headmaster. Their teaching will be coloured by their wish for promotion and salary increases based on merit. We should regard teachers as professionals, capable of doing a job. If in some weeks they spend only 42 or 45 hours teaching, that should not matter because in other weeks they will willingly spend 50 or 52 hours teaching and think nothing of it. That used to happen, but it does not now.

Mr. Boyes: I am at a disadvantage because of one of your rulings, Sir Paul. My hon. Friend is developing a critical and crucial argument. The final decision could hinge on his argument. I ask him to give way because I have an important point which will strengthen his already strong, powerful and convincing argument.
I ask you, Sir Paul, to turn to page 15 of the ACAS agreement. Appendix 1(b) is entitled "The Contractual


Duties of Entry Grade Teachers". Paragraph 1.6 refers to "teaching and materials." I might be interrupting my hon. Friend during a vital part of his argument. I might already have spoiled the sweep of it for him. But I ask him to give way.
I have researched the document carefully, because I have served on Committees under your chairmanship, Sir Paul, and I know that you are a fair and honest man who makes rulings with the best of intentions and after taking the best advice. I have found another reference to materials. Will you rule me out of order if, when my hon. Friend gives way, I ask him about this aspect of the ACAS agreement? It worries me greatly and it is of paramount importance.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I will certainly not give a ruling on arguments that have not yet been advanced.

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Boyes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Marek: In a moment. My hon. Friend makes a serious point and I hope that he will make a speech, because I should be interested to hear what he has to say.
We need management in schools, as everywhere else, and none of us is asking for an anarchic system, though we should like more co-operation and consultation and we are certainly asking for a system of negotiation and consultation on remuneration and conditions of work. Clearly the day-to-day running of a school would not work if the head were regarded in the way that we regard the Secretary of State. That would be a recipe for disaster and would lower morale even more.
Management and responsibility need to be rewarded, but it is anathema to me to give a management powers of patronage by allowing heads to give different pay increases to different teachers on the basis, at least partly, of the head's subjective view of merit. Most teachers would reject such a system.
The last point that I wish to make in seeking to persuade the Committee to vote for—

Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend and I were trained in mathematical disciplines. A little while ago he mentioned the figure 19 and said that he would put on record the 19 points that the Secretary of State insisted on. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will put those 19 points on record?

Dr. Marek: Yes, I shall. The Minister said that the ACAS agreement was a ramshackle agreement, but nothing could be further from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) read out the subject headings of the ACAS agreement and hon. Members are, no doubt, familiar with them. I do not want to waste time by reading them out again.
However, it would be appropriate for us to bear in mind the 19 points set out by the Secretary of State. The first was:
Plan, prepare, determine and review as necessary personal teaching methods and work programmes.
That is included in the ACAS agreement. The second point was:
Teach and ensure the discipline and safety of assigned timetabled classes and groups, with the different educational needs of pupils in mind.
The third point was:
Set, mark and record pupils' work.

All those matters are in the ACAS agreement. I cannot see why the Secretary of State should say that it was a ramshackle agreement. It was not.
2.15 am
The Minister's fourth point was:
Promote the general progress and welfare of a class or a group of pupils, and provide initial guidance or counselling on educational, social or career matters.
The fifth point states:
Assess and record pupils' personal and social needs, development, progress and attainment; provide or contribute to oral or written assessments and reports on individuals and groups.
Again, that is clearly spelt out in the ACAS agreement. There is certainly no sign of the ACAS agreement being ramshackle. In fact, the ACAS agreement contains many of those points in much more detail. From that point of view, it is to be recommended. The Committee should vote for the amendment.
The Secretary of State's sixth point states:
Contribute to and participate in formal performance appraisal and review, team planning, self-evaluation, in-service training and professional development in assigned areas of the curriculum, and pastoral arrangements.
The seventh point states:
Advise and co-operate with colleagues on teaching programmes, methods, equipment and materials within assigned areas of the curriculum.
Again, that is spelt out in the ACAS agreement. Nothing in this agreement could be said to be ramshackle in any way. It is a pity that the Minister described the agreement in that way.
The eighth point states:
Co-operate with appropriate specialist agencies and other appropriate outside bodies.
The ninth point states:
Ensure the safety and good order of pupils by carrying out an appropriate share of supervision on pupils' arrival at and departure from school, on dispersal and assembly at the beginning and end of the midday break, whenever pupils are authorised to be on school premises—with the exception of the midday break — and elsewhere when pupils are the responsibility of the school.
That is a rather long, tortuous paragraph, and it is not clear. The remainder of the paragraphs are short:
10. Consult and liaise with parents, attending meetings arranged for that purpose.
11. Participate in staff meetings and activities.
That is all in the ACAS agreement.
Paragraph 12 states:
Undertake an appropriate share of the collective staff responsibility to substitue for an absent colleague when required, within limits as agreed.
If hon. Members examine the ACAS agreement, which is part of the amendment, they will notice a detailed table about when teachers should and should not cover for absent colleagues and when supply teachers should be brought in. The ACAS agreement is far better on this point than the vague wording of the Secretary of State's press release.

Mr. Clay: Is there anything in the Secretary of State's 19 points that is not in the 13 points? That seems to be the conclusion to which my hon. Friend is moving. In that case, I am puzzled. I understood that as a matter of comprehension, as it was called in my days at school, teachers skilfully teach pupils to be succinct, not to use too many words when few will do, and to subsume, under as few headings as possible, as much information and specific detail as possible. It seems that the Secretary of State has a nerve to make a list under 19 headings, when the


employers and teachers have managed to compile one under 13 headings. The Secretary of State says that he wants higher standards from teachers. He is not setting much of an example—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Dr. Marek: Of course I shall give way, but I shall be ruled out of order if I give way too early.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot allow an intervention within an intervention.

Dr. Marek: To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that there is. If I am wrong on that point, I invite the Secretary of State to intervene and put the matter straight. I do not want the House to be misled in any way.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is only one Liberal Member in the Chamber? The Liberals have been leaving rapidly. Will he give way if the remaining Liberal wishes to make an intervention so that we can hear the Liberal party's point of view on this matter?

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Sir Paul. May I move that the question be now put?

The Second Deputy Chairman: No.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful to you, Sir Paul. I shall not delay the Committee much longer.
The document continues:
13. Carry out an appropriate share of such administrative and organisational tasks as flow naturally from the above duties.
14. Take part in arrangements for presenting pupils in public examinations, and contribute expertise to the preparation and development of courses of study and teaching materials in response to changes in public examinations and assessment procedures.
15. Contribute as required to the appointment, induction, professional development and assessment of junior colleages, including new entrants to teaching.
16. Co-ordinate the work of other teachers, as required, taking a leading professional role in the review, development and management of assigned curricular, pastoral or organisational activities.
17. Supervise ancillary staff where designated to do so.
18. Order and allocate appropriate equipment and materials.
19. Carry out such other related duties and responsibilities at the school as may reasonably be allocated, as need arises,
by the Head Teachers."
Those are the Secretary of State's 19 points. I shall not, because I would trespass too far on the Committee's time, compare them in detail with the ACAS document. I have looked at the document, although perhaps not in sufficient detail to enable me to answer every question, especially to answer categorically the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay). I believe that the document covers all these points in much more detail.
The Secretary of State may not like some of these points. I may not like some of them. I think that we could all offer different suggestions. But that is not the point of the argument. The Secretary of State should be in the general oversight and guiding role and leave the nitty gritty of the negotiations to the LEAs and to the teachers' organisations to sort out. Why does he concern himself so much with the little changes? Some of the changes that he wants to make will have disastrous effects. The remuneration change in particular means that teachers

would always have to look over their shoulders to see whether they were pleasing their head master, perhaps not following their best educational instinct. The problem will not be solved because of the Secretary of State's involvement in all these details or because he is giving himself blanket powers—[Interruption.] I hope that the Secretary of State is thinking about this. That point has been made often by Labour Members, and there has not been a decent answer from the Minister. Indeed, the Minister said that this was a "ramshackle" agreement.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting these points on the record, particularly for the benefit of those of us who represent Scottish constituencies and who are not, therefore, involved in this extraordinary arrangement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point about ACAS. Does he not think it odd that the Secretary of State for Education and Science for England and Wales has been so cavalier about ACAS? The position in Scotland is very different. We have the Scottish joint negotiating committee. Section 97B(3) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 states:
Any such arrangements may include provision for the appointment of arbiters by the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service for the purposes of any reference under this section.
So ACAS is written into the statute that governs these matters in Scotland, yet the Secretary of State for England and Wales is excluding it totally.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Bill deals with England and Wales only. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will not be tempted to discuss the position in Scotland.

Dr. Marek: You are right, Sir Paul. A small part of the Bill, towards the end, deals with the whole of the United Kingdom. But this part of the Bill deals only with England and Wales. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) says. I only wish that the Secretary of State took account of existing practice elsewhere.
This document has 21 closely typed pages and it deals with employers' responsibilities, safeguards, social priority allowances, salary issues, the duration of the agreement, contractual duties of entry grade teachers and the duties and responsibilities of head teachers. It is an extremely detailed and comprehensive document, and it is a great pity that no Government has said in detail why it could not be accepted. The Minister did not even give a reasoned political argument as to why the document should not be accepted. She said that it was a ramshackle agreement, but she did not delve into it too much. She dismissed it at the end of her speech as a ramshackle agreement—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Lady has a ramshackle mind.

Dr. Marek: I shall not delve into that. We shall have to wait and see as the debate develops.

Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, before the hon. Lady became a Member, she was prominent in local government associations? In that capacity, she reached many agreements with trade unions, and negotiated many agreements herself. Does she now repudiate the work of those local authority associations?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. That Minister has a local government background, as do I and my hon.


Friend. Agreements are never 100 per cent. right. They may be only 70, 80 or 90 per cent. right, but goodwill and much hard work went into drafting the agreement.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Sir Paul. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), the Liberal spokesman, has made three interventions in the debate so far. The first was to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for how long he was likely to speak; the second was to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) whether he was making the speech that he should have made earlier; and the third was to move the closure on these amendments. Now he is reading a newspaper article about smoking. Is that in order?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall assume that the hon. Gentleman is preparing himself for the debate.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. The article that the hon. Gentleman is busily reading is about smoking. I cannot see how that bears on the amendment.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Of course, it is not in order for hon. Members to read newspapers, but I intend to put a charitable interpretation on it. If the hon. Gentleman is reading something which has nothing to do with the debate, I am sure that he will desist.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I have not been reading a newspaper for the past three and a half hours. I have been doing what you suggested the Liberal Member should do—preparing myself to take part in the debate. I have here a copy of the amendments, the Bill and the list of amendments that have been selected. Having prepared all this material, I wonder whether I shall have a chance to use it.

The Second Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman looks, as he will have done, at the wide range of amendments that are available—

Mr. Skinner: I want to speak on this debate—on industrial relations.

The Second Deputy Chairman: —he should find opportunities.

Dr. Marek: This is an important debate on the two amendments and the new clause, because there is still time for the Government to have second thoughts. Even if they cannot accept the amendment, they could say that there is some merit in involving ACAS in the deliberations over the remuneration of teachers.

Dr. Godman: I hesitate to intervene as I represent a Scottish constituency, but I was educated in England at the Westbourne street boys' school in Hull. Is it not the case that, whether we are talking about teachers and local authority employers or about the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Dock Labour Board, there must almost always be a compromise in collective bargaining? Both sides of the negotiating table must make concessions. ACAS plays an important role in many areas of collective bargaining involving all kinds of employees and employers. Might not ACAS play a similarly valuable role in this area of collective bargaining as well?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend is right. That point has been made a number of times, but it loses nothing from having been made by my hon. Friend yet again. I live in hope that the more times we make it, one or two Conservative Members might realise that there is more than a grain of truth in what we are saying.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is it not weird that we have a Government and a Minister who, not too long ago, decided for their own purposes to create a union which would have ACAS as one of its advisers, yet now they are taking away the same right from another body of people because it suits their purposes?

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The Government should resist their centralising tendency on this matter, as on many others. The country would be better for that. We would have a better education system and teaching profession if the Government were to show the country that they are prepared to let ACAS have a role, if nobody else, and that they will have a system which is impartial. seen to be impartial and which has a chance of obtaining mutual agreement between the two sides at the end of the day.
The Minister might think that he is impartial and fair, but not many other people think that at the moment. I say with the deepest of respect that at the moment people do not think that, and the teaching profession certainly does not think that. The Minister has a chance to put the matter right by bringing ACAS in, and I hope that he will.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) raised the points of order about the Liberals. While I was meeting the teachers outside in the Lobby and some of my hon. Friends were speaking in the debate, I was not aware of what the Liberal and Social Democratic parties had been doing in the debate. I had to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) what had happened. It should be put clearly on the record so that it gets outside that the Liberal party, even more so than the Tory party really, wanted to get the Bill faster than the Minister. The teachers should be told.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) stood in his place when my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was manfully putting his points across, and moved, That the question be now put. That is usually the tactic of a Minister.

Dr. Godman: A Freudian slip.

Mr. Skinner: I don't think it was.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I know that we are galloping on in the Bill, but there are some 18 more groups of amendments. We have tabled 18 amendments. [Interruption.] Quantity does not make up for quality. It is only fair to explain that the sooner this particular group of amendments is debated, the sooner will the Liberals' voice be heard and their amendments put.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is now guilty of repetition. If he were appearing on "Just a Minute" he would be pulled up for repeating himself. He has said three times that the Liberal party wants to deal with these amendments. We have to show the teachers we met today in the Central Lobby that we mean business. My hon.


Friends have been honouring the pledges that they gave to the teachers. When I went out, Sir Paul, to meet the 600 or 700 people who were queueing to get into the building, they called upon us and on Tory Members of Parliament, if they could find them, to come into the Chamber and oppose by all legitimate means this dastardly measure that has been introduced by the Government. I do not know what Liberal Members of Parliament have been saying to the teachers.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend did not have the benefit of attending the rally in Central Hall, Westminster, today, but Ann Sofer, speaking on behalf of the Social Democratic party and presumably also on behalf of the Liberal party, said that the alliance would fight the Bill at every possible opportunity. Does my hon. Friend consider that the behaviour of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) is consistent with the pledge that was given by his SDP colleague?

Mr. Skinner: That puts the matter into proper perspective. A spokesperson told the rally what the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party intend to do, but after the rally Dr. Death had a word with them and said, "Now be careful. There are some right-wing parents in the south who want the Secretary of State for Education and Science to wield the big stick. Don't get up to any hanky-panky. Tell the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East to keep his trap shut, apart from trying to move the closure at every possible opportunity." It shows once again the two-faced nature of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party.

Mr. Madden: This is most revealing. My hon. Friend will recall that the alliance has made a lot of fuss in the Chamber. It has demanded more rights and more opportunities to speak. Microphones have been moved. Does my hon. Friend not think that it is important that those outside should know that the SDP half of the alliance has been completely absent throughout the Committee stage, which started at just after 4 pm. It is now 2.38 am. Apart from some very brief appearances by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), the SDP has been totally absent, leaving the almost mute spokesman for the Liberal party to carry these onerous responsibilities, although his only contribution so far has been to try to move the closure.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has referred to the public address equipment and to the microphones in this place. A special microphone was installed for the Liberals, no doubt to help them to take part in all-night sittings. It is a pity that they are not using it. I notice that another microphone has been installed on the other side of the Chamber. I believe that it has been put in for the leader of the Social Democratic party when he crosses the Floor of the House.

Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back, he will remember that he and I protested about the installation of this microphone. I said that I did not need it, and jointly we said that we did not think that the leader of the Liberal party needed his, either.

Mr. Skinner: As I told the right hon. Gentleman at the time — he did not believe me then — I am pretty convinced what it is for. No doubt he will finally make his way across the Floor, and Liberals such as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East will stew in their

own juice. That is what the SDP leaders are about. They want to use people so that they can run the show. They tried to run the Labour party—I am just leaving this point, Sir Paul—and because they could not, they left, without a ballot, and they are now dominating the Liberals. That is why "Spitting Image" has got it dead right when it shows David Steel in David Owen's pocket.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reaching the end of his preamble and is about to come to the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: I was distracted. I am trying to keep to the point, although I did not see the Serjeant at Arms' point, irrespective of what the Wapping press had to say. The Division took only 14 minutes, which is par for the course. The Chairman of Ways and Means was upset about that because one of the members of the Wapping press said that he was in the Chair when, as you know, Sir Paul, you were in the Chair—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying into something else that has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: I happened to mention it to the teachers outside. As they were still queuing, complaining about the fact that the ACAS agreement had been withdrawn by the Secretary of State, they were crestfallen because they could not find any Tory Members of Parliament or for that matter any Liberals to help them fight the Bill. I thought that I would tell them a few amusing stories about the palace of varieties to pass the time. I told them what the Labour party was doing, and I am certain that they felt pleased that on this occasion the Labour party, unlike the Liberals and the SDP, would be coming here today to use all legitimate parliamentary means to frustrate the Bill. That is important. That has been lacking in this Parliament. Nothing pleased me more than to hear my colleague the hon. Member for Jarrow and others like him in the Whips Office wanting to make sure that we fight in a more consistent fashion against some of these obnoxious pieces of legislation. We have found one here. It will strike a chord outside. Many people listening to the 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock news will be pleased to know that the Labour party is fighting the Bill line by line.
I hope that in the next set of amendments dealing with further education, some of my hon. Friends will deal with this matter—it is just a thought to pass on. In every textbook about politics, one reads about the way that one can use Parliament. One of the ways is to occupy time. The Opposition cannot do any more than that.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Skinner: At this point, my hon. Friend wants to occupy time.

Mr. Corbyn: Does not my hon. Friend think that ACAS could be put to good use in liaising between the Liberals and the Social Democrats, or perhaps investigating exactly what attitude Liberal and SDP-controlled or led local authorities have taken towards the teachers' pay dispute, the argument over salaries and conditions and indeed, this piece of legislation? As there is silence from the Liberals and the SDP tonight on the matter — they are absent — there is a need for someone to tell us exactly where those two parties stand. Perhaps there are differing points of view beyond those two. Perhaps there are differing points of view beyond those two. There might be


two in Parliament, two outside or 200 outside. Or they might not have a clue and have no option to offer anybody.

Mr. Skinner: In fact, it was summed up in a previous debate about the teacher's dispute when there was a strike taking place in various schools up and down the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will remember. He took part in that debate and I listened. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, the education spokesman for the Liberal party, decided to make a speech on that occasion. He did not manage to get round to ACAS because I do not think that he thought for one moment that that was where it would finish up. In a nutshell what he said—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough will confim this—was that he was on the side of the teachers and on the side of the Government at the same time. I think that that adequately sums up the position of the alliance. In almost every contentious issue the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party back every horse that is running in the race.

Dr. Godman: Surely the reason for the stunning silence of members of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party is their ignorance of industrial relations and collective bargaining. I would have thought that the essential thrust of the amendment is the role offered to ACAS. It seems, perhaps my hon. Friend will agree, that the employers and the trade unions would surely benefit from the guiding role performed by the experts in collective bargaining. The importance of the amendment is the role being offered to ACAS and, in turn, offered to both employers' and employees' representatives in these difficult and trying circumstances.

Mr. Skinner: That is a worthy point. One of the planks of Liberalism as I used to know it before I became a Member of the House was based upon the least Government interference in any situation. That is what Liberalism is all about. The Liberal party said at its conference this year as it has in previous years, that it believes in less Government intervention and in bodies dealing with industrial relations matters. Therefore, one would have thought that the alliance spokesman would have come here today and applauded the fact that ACAS got round the table and managed to come up with a 19-point resolution of the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "13 points."] I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) referring to 19, but I will accept 13. When I was outside today—

Mr. Freud: I would simply like to point out that it was the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party that tabled a reasoned amendment on Second Reading. That amendment was supported by the Labour party. To date, we have reached clause 1, page 1, line 5 and it ill becomes anyone to criticise one for silence when we have so far, in nine and a half hours of debate, covered five lines.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman does not understand—he has been here many years—that it is the duty of the Opposition to frustrate a Bill that they deem to be wrong for the people to whom it applies and that

everything that has happened today has been in order. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that certain contributions have been out of order.

Mr. Freud: I am not.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is saying, then. That is a reflection on the Chair. The Chair is dealing with the debate. At some later stage I might not be happy about the closure motions that are put and accepted by the Chair but, at this stage and after these hours when my hon. Friends have been speaking within the order of the House, I believe that they are doing a job that has to be done and that they are carrying out the promises they made to all the teachers outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) wants to make a valuable contribution.

Mr. Nellist: Before my hon. Friend was sidetracked by the almost unique intervention of the Liberal spokesman, he was answering a point from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I hope that he will continue with that. In recent months, my hon. Friend and I have had the benefit of discussions with a former ACAS chairman, Mr. Jim Mortimer, who is now doing other things. Mr. Mortimer had certain views about his experience with ACAS and about the anti-trade union laws brought in by the Government in the past seven years. This is one of the few occasions when we can get to grips with those matters. Members who were not present for those discussions may benefit from some of the points that were made.

Mr. Skinner: Jim Mortimer had a somewhat chequered career, finishing up as general secretary of the Labour party. I shall not go into the pros and cons of that, because at that time he had nothing to do with ACAS. Nevertheless, he gained valuable experience with ACAS. I do not wish to offend my hon. Friend, but I have not exactly fallen in love with ACAS. It is as well to make that clear now. That is not to say, however, that ACAS could not achieve a more reasonable settlement than the Government on some occasions. That is what we are saying today. We speak from a position of strength when we say that although ACAS has done a bit of meddling in its time and sometimes come down on the side of the employers, and notwithstanding its somewhat Establishment make-up, it has still managed to make some sensible arrangements in difficult circumstances when there was a multitude of unions which somehow could not get their act together until the settlement was finally agreed.

Mr. Corbyn: I have a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments about ACAS, but does he agree that one of its advantages is that the terms of its establishment mean that it is bound to promote collective bargaining on both sides and thus supports the principle of trade union organisation? The present Secretary of State is bitterly opposed to the very existence of trade unions. That is why a considerable number of trade unionists are in prison in this country for defying the legislation that the Secretary of State supports.

Mr. Skinner: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to people like Terry French, or Mike Hicks, who was arrested on the Wapping picket line. That is part of the Government's policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has said, it is a bizarre state


of affairs when the Government say that they wish to interfere with free collective bargaining, to have nothing to do with the ACAS agreement and to impose their settlement on the unions and especially the NUT whether they like it or not, when that very Government were elected on a mandate of non-interference.
Just before the 1979 general election, the Conservatives took part in a debate in the House about the Ford settlement, which was 17 per cent. The then Tory Opposition claimed that there should be no interference between Ford and its employees. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will recall the forthright statements of the Tories on that occasion that we should not interfere in the Ford settlement. They put down a motion about it with the intention of embarrassing the Labour Government and setting the theme for the election of a Tory Government who could then claim in their election campaign that they were all for free collective bargaining. There were to be no incomes polices of the Liberal or SDP kind. There were to be no £6 or 10 per cent. pay policies. The ethos of their campaign was that, as a result of the Ford debate, when they were elected, there would be no interference. That is what happened for a long time.

Dr. Godman: The references to Liberal Members' contribution is something of an irrelevance, because they are an irrelevance in a debate about industrial relations and collective bargaining in England and Wales. I can understand my hon. Friend's suspicions, or even cynical, view of ACAS, but surely he agrees that it has played an important role in bringing about a peaceful resolution of several industrial conflicts. It does not always play to the establishment in collective bargaining. Sometimes, ACAS has nobly defended the interests of trade unionists who were powerless.

Mr. Skinner: My attitude to ACAS is coloured by what happened in the miners' strike. It had ample opportunities to find some form of settlement. I believe that the Government told ACAS what the score was and that they and MacGregor intervened and stopped ACAS, which was probably trying to find a solution or a halfway point. Because of the umbilical cord between the Government, some of the establishment, such as MacGregor, and ACAS, the Government were able to force their way and get the settlement that we have today.
I hazard a guess that ACAS has probably grown a bit since then and that, in regard to the teachers, it thought, "Here is an industrial problem. The teachers have been on strike on and off for about 18 months. It is not like the teachers to take industrial action"—[Laughter.] Oh, no. I visit most picket lines, and during my 30-odd years on the political scene I have not had to visit many teachers' picket lines until recently.
I believe that ACAS might have thought, "This is a bit different. Perhaps the Government have gone one step too far." Nobody is impartial, but looking at the problem from a more objective point of view, ACAS might have thought, "We must stand firm and come up with a resolution."

Mr. Corbyn: What my hon. Friend is saying about teachers becoming more aware of their situation is important. In the 1979 low pay dispute, the participation of teachers in support of manual workers in schools was minimal in many places—but not any more.
Does my hon. Friend agree that often, when local authorities reach agreement, the Government pull the money out from under the employer? That is true of the nurses' pay claim, which has not been properly funded, and of the local authority manual workers' claims. The Government operate double standards. They say that they are not interfering in collective bargaining, but they pull the strings from a distance to drive real wages down.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is making the point that I heard earlier, that this is the thin end of the wedge, and the Government have decided that ACAS has come up with a resolution of a problem, and they do not like or want it because it places them in a predicament. It could be that the Government are saying, "Well, it happened to be the teachers, but it doesn't matter what it is—ACAS may come up with some other settlement, such as that for the nurses before the general election, and we might find that unpalatable." It could be that the Government have decided that ACAS deliberations cannot be accepted despite the fact that they could resolve the problem.

3 am

Dr. Godman: I point out to my hon. Friend that I said that I shared some of his suspicions about ACAS. However, he should remember that it is not some kind of mediating body that seeks to bring together two forces that are equally powerful. I would have thought that in any analysis of industrial relations in the United Kingdom, it is almost always the case irrespective of the industry, that the employer possesses much more power than organised labour, and despite what this doltish lot say about dockers and others, that is the case for just about every industry, including education.

Mr. Skinner: That is a fair point, and that is why we are here at three o'clock in the morning, addressing the position of teachers, and redressing the balance by calling on the Government to accept the amendment. We have spent some time discussing ACAS. We must try to influence the Government into accepting its role.
Today, I was talking to some teachers who had come here to lobby. They could not get in, but I managed to find a way to bring them in so that they could lobby Tory Members of Parliament. They were able to find Labour Members of Parliament to talk about ACAS and the amendments. One of them asked me, "Do you know where Parkinson is?" He obviously meant the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson). I said, "Probably not, because he has got 10 jobs." They could not believe me. I had to get the Register of Members' Interests from the Vote Office to show them. I thought that I did the right and proper thing by letting them have a copy for research and analysis.
One of them asked whether the right hon. Gentleman needed the money, but I do not know about that. They could not find the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, but I helped them by going through the list and telling them who was a Tory Member, because it does not signify whether they are Labour or Tory or sky blue or pink. They spent their time putting in green cards, which is an important function of this place, especially on a day like today. They referred to the Secretary of State, and they were livid that they could not see him. They sent a message through his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but they did not see the Secretary of State.
These people were worried about the "Weekend World" programme, on which the Secretary of State appeared. Another Tory Minister appearing on another Tory programme. It is run by a Tory, Matthew Parris. It used to be run by another Tory who has now left the country and is living on much more than a teacher's wage somewhere in the Channel Islands.
The teachers said it was high time that somebody put the alternative point of view. I told them that a host of my hon. Friends were in the Chamber ready to explain the teachers' case when speaking to various amendments, including the one about ACAS. The teachers were pleased at that, even though we did not get the chance to appear on "Weekend World" and put their case. On that programme Matthew Parris plays pat ball. Many hon. Members are interviewed on television and worry about what the last question will be. We think somebody will drop us a cobbler. Tory Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Education and Science, appear on that programme and for them it is like Christmas Day, Boxing Day and a birthday rolled into one. They cannot fail. If you, Sir Paul, ever get a chance to appear on that programme to talk about ACAS, ask for Matthew Parris and it will be a doddle.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This may be interesting, but I cannot relate it to the amendment.

Mr. Skinner: If you get the chance, Sir Paul, to talk about the way you keep order in the Committee and if you are worried about whether you will be interviewed by Sir Robin Day or somebody who might put a few trick questions, settle for "Weekend World".

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Kilroy-Silk?

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman mentions Kilroy-Silk. There might yet be a debate on the programme about ACAS, and it will probably be about the teachers, who knows? The viewing figures are terrible. There are fewer people watching that programme than there are hon. Members present in the Chamber. I do not know what will happen to Matthew Parris and I hope that no one can detect a smile on my face. He will probably have to ask ACAS to sort it out when he is threatened with the sack, but he will hardly get an all-night sitting on his behalf.
The teachers that I met were huddled in corners in the Lobbies trying to contact various hon. Members. I met them after they had met various people and they were overwhelmed with the support that they had from Labour Members. [Interruption.] It is not always the case. I explained to them that for the first time in a long time we would use legitimate parliamentary tactics to try to frustrate this piece of legislation.
There has been a poll since we started this debate and we have already narrowed the gap. There has been a five-point improvement since the debate began. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will agree that the ACAS agreement was a good one.
In some respects, my hon. Friend and I have different views about ACAS, but we do not need to go through that again. Perhaps we do. From the speeches that I have heard in the debate, that agreement favours the lower paid more than the higher paid. That is an egalitarian agreement and must be supported.
The discussions took several days and the people who took part in them are to be commended. In spite of the pressures from some of the small teacher unions that represent the headmasters and people like that—the people mainly associated with the Tories—the discussions ended in proposals which shifted the balance in favour of teachers coming in at the lower end of the scale, and especially teachers who have to teach in dilapidated schools. To some degree, but not entirely, that must be a factor in favour of the settlement.

Mr. Edward Rowlands: My hon. Friend has referred to Tory headmasters. The representations that I received today from Merthyr and Rhymney were from headmasters who are not Tories.

Mr. Skinner: That is even better. What will the next poll show? We are not here by accident; we are not here on a fool's errand. We are taking part in the debate because we know that the Bill is an injustice. Not all my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber come from the teaching profession. Many of us left school a long time ago, but we feel that the Tory Government are up to something that is wrong. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is able to say, quite properly, that he has met headmasters who are not Tories. Perhaps some were Tories, but they have come to the conclusion that the ball has to stop now.

Mr. Alen McKay: My hon. Friend has spoken of fear and unease about the Bill. Some of us are thinking—this should be the thinking of those outside the House—that the Bill is the beginning of a scheme that the Tories have to mount a further attack upon the working class across the board. The Bill is the first of a series of measures to that end.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is on the right lines. I would merely say that the Bill is not the first measure to attack the working class. The Tory Government have taken on a long list of workers over the past seven years. The teachers have acted spendidly in their own defence for 18 months and they are almost at the end of the line. They are probably the first of what we call, loosely, the professionals who have been tackled. I advise anyone who is a member of the National and Local Government Officers Association and thinking of voting Tory at the next election to watch out. He should understand that he is next in line. The Government have taken on some badly organised groups of manual workers and now they are taking on the teaching profession. The teachers are the thin end of the wedge. The Government will say, "We have dusted down the teachers and told ACAS to get lost. We can now move into another area," and who knows where it will end?

Mr. Bill Michie: We know that some teachers voted Tory in 1983, and I spoke to two or three this afternoon who did that. When they did so they never believed that a Tory Government would remove their union's negotiating rights. The teachers who voted Tory in 1983 for short-term, selfish reasons have learnt their lesson. They will not make the same mistake at the next general election.

Mr. Skinner: I have no doubt that we have reached watershed. I know that that word is over-used, but we are speaking about workers who, by and large, have not been involved in industrial disputes. That was the position until


the Government were elected. I am sure that other groups, such as those that are represented by the National and Local Government Officers Association will be concerned, and we must use the debate subsequently to spread the message among other groups. We must explain that if the Government are prepared to rush this Bill through Parliament with their 160-odd majority, even though there is no need to do so, that spells disaster for many other workers. Perhaps one day they will get around to the solicitors.

Mr. Boyes: Exactly how many people are in NALGO? There are many votes to be had, and many of those people have already experienced one hard lesson. I apologise for referring to it again, but I feel so bitter about the way in which the Government treated the metropolitan counties and the GLC. Those bodies never got the chance of going to ACAS or of going to the ballot box and their employees lost their jobs. My hon. Friend raises an important point, because NALGO is watching the teachers very carefully. Does my hon. Friend realise that more than 1·5 million people belong to NALGO and that every one of them will see this Bill as a party political—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is not in order to discuss NALGO on this amendment.

Mr. Boyes: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I call the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: The last thing we want to do is fall out with the Chair. That can be done on many other occasions. Although we may lose the vote, there is no point in infuriating Sir Paul when we are winning the argument. He has deemed that everything up to now has been in order—

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Sir Paul. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has so touched me that I believe I might have offended you. I apologise for having strayed.

Mr. Skinner: There is no need to crawl.

Mr. Boyes: I had no intention of straying. But my hon. Friend has convinced me that it is necessary to apologise. I hope that you will accept my apology for straying outside the terms of the amendment. I should not have referred to NALGO or the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC with the consequent job losses for NALGO members without recourse to ACAS. I assure you, Sir Paul, that I shall not do it again on this amendment.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that he has not offended me. However, it is my job to ensure that the debate is in order. It is a wide debate, but I am being very tolerant as I recognise the important issues and the strength of feeling on them. We must, however, stay within the rules.

Mr. Skinner: One could say of your response to my hon. Friend's contribution, Sir Paul, that you have spoken just like ACAS and have come up with the solution.

Dr. Godman: I appreciate that there are some differences in our perceptions of ACAS, ACAS officials and the functions that they perform in collective

bargaining. If the amendment were carried, ACAS officials would be able to provide a most useful function in collective bargaining on terms and conditions of employment without playing a direct interventionist role. In my view, ACAS could play an important educational role in industrial relations training. Many in the teaching profession had little or no experience of collective bargaining and had not been involved in industrial disputes until recently. ACAS might have an important educational role.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows a lot about ACAS. That is becoming apparent. My hon. Friend could make a valuable contribution to this debate. To be serious, in all his interventions my hon. Friend has tried to probe, to find out and to explain precisely the role of ACAS. That is why I am convinced that our debate on these amendments should not go by without a contribution from my hon. Friend.
On training, the Government are very unsure of their ground. They are not keen on training anybody, apart from Parliamentary Private Secretaries. There have been plenty of them. One is now asleep. Is it in order, Sir Paul, for a Parliamentary Private Secretary to be fast asleep? There is a limit. I see that the hon. Gentleman has taken out the matchsticks but it is coming to something when such lack of interest is shown.
The Government have a majority of 160 on paper — they did not have that majority in the last Division. The Government majority then dropped by about 100, and that says something else. People close to the Minister treat the House with comtempt when they think, "Let's get on with the vote. We shall win the vote. We don't care about the teachers. We don't make contributions apart from brief ones by the Minister."

Dr. Godman: I should like to ask a supplementary question about the training role of ACAS. I try to be a fair-minded, constructive critic of Tory Ministers, but it is fair to say that in terms of industrial relations training, earlier Tory Governments encouraged—albeit adventitiously—the development of industrial training.
The Industrial Relations Act 1971 came into force on 28 February 1972 long before I entered the House. That Act, with its industrial relations code which was approved eventually by ACAS, encouraged the development of training. I say that from experience because I was involved in the training of shop stewards and managers at Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. ACAS was involved. If the amendment were carried it would give a major impetus to the able work performed by ACAS. I say that despite criticisms by some of the hon. Friends. That was the point that I was trying to make.

Mr. Skinner: I am not opposed to the evolution of ACAS. Nothing is static and if I said — was it adventitiously?—a few moments ago that I was not too keen on ACAS generally, that is because I was coloured by its attitude during the strike. Is the word "adventitious" in order, Sir Paul? Is it mentioned in "Erskine May"?
As ACAS is evolving—my hon. Friend knows so much about ACAS that he must have been watching it evolve; it is almost as if he can see it grow. He could get a job there. Don't get me wrong. Some people come here and end up as bookies' runners, but my hon. Friend has


shown some expertise about this ACAS institution and that has been helpful to all of us. It has been a sort of educational experience for some of us.

Mr. Dixon: ACAS night classes.

Mr. Skinner: Well, I am not sure that ACAS would call them night classes. It has probably got something to do with my background, but I have a feeling that ACAS would call them seminars. That is what worries me. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow is with me on that. I think that he has been with me all the way. He has not said a deal, but I keep looking at his face to make sure that we are on the same wavelength on this ACAS business. That shows the broad expanse in our party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and I take an arm's-length position on ACAS, while accepting what it has done on this issue, and the Labour party also accommodates my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow who has studied ACAS, not only in relation to this matter, but in a wider form. He has been able to show the rest of us that it has possibilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and I will watch this growth under the next Labour Government, because ACAS could get a little too close to the Establishment.

Dr. Godman: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend refrained from calling me an expert on ACAS. I suspect all experts and I am an observer.

Mr. Skinner: A better word.

Dr. Goodman: Yes, a much better word. I should like my hon. Friend to take on board the fact that if the amendment were passed—there is some doubt about that, because of the lumpen bourgeoisie on the Government Benches—the procedures established with the intervention of ACAS would force on employers and employees' associations training needs which would have to be met with sensible and realistic programmes for the training of trade union representatives. In a diffuse sense, ACAS has a training role to play in this area of collective bargaining.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has put the matter in a better perspective. It was wrong of me to presume that, because he knew so much about ACAS, he was an expert. We do not always get hon. Members to acknowledge that they are not experts. Most people would jump at the chance to hear somebody call them an expert. My hon. Friend is modest.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend should look behind him.

Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is the only one. He purports to be an expert on the law. One of my hon. Friends says that he is not, but I shall not go into that matter because it may open another can of worms. It may lead us to that Wright fellow in Sydney. I do not know whether ACAS could resolve that problem.
Would not things look up if this amendment were carried? Imagine what prospects would open for these people—ACAS, supported by my hon. Friend, as he observes them. They could then muscle in on all sorts of things. Not that I wish to see the Government rescued in respect of their spies and all the rest of it. We know where

the spies come from, anyway. They come out of the belly of the Establishment. They have not caught a shop steward yet. The newspapers always suggest that the spies come from the Left, or ACAS. Most of them seem to come from public schools. That counteracts what ACAS has done. Perhaps my hon. Friend and others have forgotten that we have got to the kernel of the matter—the lowly paid.
I hope that hon. Members do not get me wrong on this point. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish to be misquoted, either, in future when there is a Labour Government. I am pleased that the Government have been multi-egalitarian in the way that they have distributed the available money. It is a type of harbinger for an incomes policy. Although ACAS has come up with this solution, I should not want anybody to get the impression that somebody from outside could tell NUPE laundry cleaners—people who are lower paid—that the only way to get a decent wage increase is to finish up at ACAS with this posh body. Although the collective bargaining procedures go to ACAS, we would rather see those people collectively bargain together — more joining NUPE, the General Municipal and the other unions that cover those trades — to try to get better wages. In that way, the two functions could operate together.

Dr. Godman: It must be noted that the amendment states:
under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service between representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers' unions.
During the evolution of ACAS, over 10 years, it might be possible to give it additional powers that will enable it to redress, change or counteract the imbalance in power that exists between employers' organisations and employees' associations.

Mr. Skinner: So long as we understand that, as in this case, ACAS is free from any Government interference. The debate is about a Government who are imposing a settlement. In forthright terms, we do not want to see that development. We have had a conflict between the Government, who hold the purse strings, and the teachers' unions. As a result, they have found a way to ACAS. That is OK by me. That is a fairly sensible conclusion. We hesitate about the fact that, in future, ACAS might intervene in an area where it is not altogether welcome. That is a worthy matter to put on record as we utilise the arguments about ACAS. That prompted the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East to start writing.

Mr. Boyes: He is doodling.

Mr. Skinner: He is probably practising for his next radio programme.
The essence of the low pay argument is good in itself. Today, I heard the views of some teachers. They said, "Whatever you do, Dennis, you tell Harold Walker this, if he gets into the Chair." I said "He will, because he is always there. He will be there. He is the sort of Chairman who understands the issues — not that he can be anything other than impartial." He is not one to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow from making a valuable contribution about the role of ACAS, as he has observed it over the years.

Mr. Dixon: Not during the miners' strike.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow observed it then. During the strike, ACAS was picked out


by the Government. Obviously, there were some ACAS personnel who were made of the right stuff to stand up to MacGregor and the Government. As I said earlier—my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow might not have been listening closely—those people believe that the teachers have been given such a raw deal that they have to assert themselves against the Government. This is because of the outrageous way in which the Government dealt with the teachers after they had lost so much money.

Mr. Dixon: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I have been trying to get my hon. Friend to intervene.

Mr. Dixon: I have not intervened because I have a cold and can hardly talk. I agree with my hon. Friend's point about ACAS during the miners' strike. But we do not want to get carried away with ACAS. During the period I was involved in the trade union movement, I always considered that going to ACAS was like having a row with the wife and getting the mother-in-law to arbitrate.

Mr. Skinner: We have been discussing ACAS, completely in order, for about an hour, Mr. Walker, and I have been struggling to approach the matter in an academic fashion in order to fit in with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. I should not have done that. I should have resorted to my instincts. There, in a nutshell, is what I have been trying to say. The debate could have finished early. In some ways, our legitimate parliamentary tactics could have been frustrated if the throat of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow had not been so sore. He could have jumped in straight away.

Mr. Dixon: I would not have moved the closure.

Mr. Skinner: You missed the best part, Mr. Walker, when the Liberals decided to speak for the first time today. They wanted to move, That the Question be now put. That caused a certain amount of hilarity, as you can guess, Sir — not that we should be totally amused about this debate.

Mr. Bermingham: rose—

Mr. Skinner: No, we should not be continuously amused about the debate, because my hon. Friend is now going to make a legal point.

Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that—now that we have had the mother-in-law join the mother and the wife, now that we have had the Liberals' retreat and now that we have had all the academics—the Secretary of State, in seeking to pour scorn on ACAS, shows his complete contempt for anyone who seeks to disagree with him?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friends will have heard that, in a quiet unassuming fashion, How my hon. Friend from ferret land has intervened, only a second after my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. The contrast! I talked about how this party embraces people who know ACAS inside out, people who do not trust ACAS and people who go to court about ACAS; yet here we are—and this is the significant point—all on the same side because we know that injustice is being carried out by the Government against the teachers.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend who comes from Wales wants to contribute.

Mr. Rowlands: I have been pondering my hon. Friend's comment a few minutes ago that all headmasters are Tories. I want him to withdraw the absurd slur that he has made on the many headmasters who are anything but Tories. Will he do that for me?

Mr. Skinner: I thought I had done it in a commendable fashion. I said earlier that we had all met people from the Lobby, and I said, off-the-cuff, that one headmasters' organisation, about which I had been reading in the newspapers, was supporting the Government. I might inadvertently have given the impression that I thought all headmasters were Tories. I am not sure about it. It is pretty clear that the headmasters are coming over to our side, and that is a good thing. So there is no doubt that—

Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend withdraw?

Mr. Skinner: No, I will not withdraw anything. No one has made me do it in 16 years, and I am not starting tonight. I have made considerable concessions tonight, but my hon. Friend should not ask me to travel down that road.

Mr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for ACAS.

Dr. Godman: Looking at the role that is envisaged for ACAS in the agreement, may I point out to my hon. Friend that I am not an uncritical admirer of ACAS? I approach ACAS in a fair-minded and constructive way. We must acknowledge that, in some instances, ACAS has defended the interests of workers who are badly organised. I remind my hon. Friend that if the amendment were passed and if ACAS were to play this role in collective bargaining in education, it might encourage the House to look afresh at ACAS and to give it greater powers. Those powers would have to be based on the premise that, in almost every case, the organised work force is less powerful than the employers. May I make one further point? I never thought that I would end up as my hon. Friend's straight man.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has been making valuable contributions. He said that he was not an uncritical admirer of ACAS. It has all gelled at the end, has it not? As we come towards the end, a couple of us on this Bench are not quite in love with ACAS. My hon. Friend gave the impression initially that he was an expert—

Dr. Godman: An observer.

Mr. Skinner: He is an observer. Now he is not an uncritical admirer on occasions—

Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Skinner: I will when I have made this point, which is important. I do not wish to impugn the name of the Chair, Mr. Walker, and I do not say that we should have a minute's silence, but we should remember that you set it up and that you have played a valuable role—

Dr. Godman: I do not seek to curry favour with you, Mr. Walker.

Mr. Skinner: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who has not been in the Chamber lately, but who spoke earlier.

Mr. Flannery: I am disconcerted about my hon. Friend's difficulties with this group of Welsh headmasters.


May we enlist the good offices of ACAS to help him with this problem group who, although we are assured that they are solid Labour supporters, belong to an organisation that has been acting like a bunch of Tories? I refer to the National Association of Head Teachers. Could ACAS help him out of the dilemma?

Mr. Skinner: Looking at it objectively, as an observer, during the past week or two, I got the impression that that organisation was causing some trouble for ACAS. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, there are some Labour supporters in that organisation, but the body itself exudes a sort of bluish dye. It has frustrated to some extent the attempts made by the bulk of the unions, including the National Union of Teachers, to obtain this important settlement.

Mr. Nellist: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) talked about ACAS having to conciliate between employers and employees, particularly when the employees were in the weaker position. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain that in virtually every case the latent strength of workers, who are the only ones who produce wealth in society, is not fully realised, and that is where the trade unionism comes to the fore.
3.45 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is well into his second hour on amendment No. 4 and since we have had a change of Chair, will he recap on some of his earlier points, at least for the benefit of Mr. Walker?

Mr. Skinner: I do not have to recap. I can give a summary. I shall only point out that it was Mr. Walker who set up ACAS.
In short, we have discussed the valuable role of ACAS and the fact that in 1979 the Government set out to get rid of it. Then they used it during the miners' strike. Then we tended to put forward the argument, with which I think that most Opposition Members concurred, that ACAS had asserted itself during the teachers' dispute and had come up with a kind of resolution. We also discussed the question of its evolution. Could it grow? Where and how would it grow? What kind of shape would it have in the future? Would it be more beneficial? There were also the dangers that it might interfere more in collective bargaining and some of us were worried about that. We have covered the landscape of ACAS and it has all been important.

Dr. Godman: If we examine the amendment and take on board the power that ACAS has acquired in education, despite its chequered history — I am not unmindful of what happened in the dispute in the coal mining industry—it could play a powerful role. Surely my hon. Friend will agree that it is entirely sensible to envisage an ACAS that is independent of a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, which acts on behalf of weaker groups in the industrial world.

Mr. Skinner: We could have a good theoretical discussion about what would happen if ACAS managed to grow in that fashion. I would rather tend to the view that it would militate against the growth of trade unionism. Some of us have the old-fashioned view that in

industrial struggles which take place every day on the shop floor, or in this case in the classroom, the battle for trade unionism survives on the basis of a union being able to say to its members that it is in a position to fight. We would not want to see ACAS develop into a kind of cushion, making it a soft option, which would mean that joining a trade union was not all that important. That is the area in which we would have doubts.

Mr. Boyes: Let me ask my hon. Friend about those headmasters. I do not want to ask him to withdraw anything because even if the Serjeant at Arms had his sword pointed at my hon. Friend's throat he would not withdraw anything that he had said. However, many headmasters support the Labour party. Tonight's opinion polls show that the number of headmasters who support Labour is growing by every second. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the rise of 5 per cent. in the opinion polls is not just because of today's debate. I hope he agrees that the 5 per cent. rise is also due to the announcement by the leader of our party that the Labour party will get rid of nuclear weapons.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with ACAS.

Mr. Boyes: I am dealing with ACAS, Mr. Walker. I digress for just a second, because you were not in the Chair when we referred to Labour's 5 per cent. rise in the opinion polls. Ever since I became a Member of Parliament I have listened to every statement on education, and no hon. Member knows more about that subject than my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). For many years he has championed the teachers' cause. Even though he says that the association is a little on the Conservative side, I know that he will not disagree with me when I say that many headmasters are members of the Labour party. Both of us used to be teachers and both of us were members of the Labour party then. We might have been headmasters by now, but we would still be Labour party members.

Mr. Skinner: At a meeting in my constituency about 10 days ago a headmaster was on the platform with me. We spoke to about 700 people concerning a dispute over the reorganisation of the schools. I took the side of the schools. The dispute may eventually reach Parliament, in which case we shall have to do battle with the Secretary of State for Education and Science. So I have been busy doing a little pre-electioneering. It was not bad to speak to so many teachers and parents. The headmaster stood beside me on that joint platform. People like him are in the right. The same will be true at Bolsover. When I speak there on Sunday the audience is expected to be about 1,000, and I shall again be talking about the reorganisation of schools.
I have made the point over and over again that there are always exceptions to the rule, but by and large this organisation has cuddled up to the Government during the dispute, particularly during its latter stages.

Mr. Nellist: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, to which we shall no doubt return, but when we were discussing ACAS on the previous group of amendments I do not believe that any hon. Member mentioned that our principal objection was to the Secretary of State having the power to appoint an advisory body and then to impose a


pay structure and conditions of service. That is patronage. While we are dealing with this group of amendments, surely we ought to be discussing the Labour party's demand that members of the conciliation service ought to be elected.

Mr. Skinner: That must have been in Mr. Walker's mind when, as a Minister, he set up ACAS. Accountability is important. I am not averse to that. However, although we have supported ACAS in this dispute I think that we should be a little careful about how far we back it on every single issue.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend has referred continually to head teachers belonging to only one union. Will he accept that there are headmasters and headmistresses even within the National Union of Teachers and that he should not therefore refer to all headmasters and headmistresses as belonging to one union that tends to be Conservative-controlled?

Mr. Skinner: I think that the record will show that about an hour ago I made no reference whatsoever to all headmasters and headmistresses being Tories. The record will show that I did not say that. It will also show that I have not said that all headmasters and headmistresses are in that one organisation. I am getting a bit fed up of someone being so pernickety, when Hansard will show, when it is produced, that no such statement was made by me. I have no reason to worry about withdrawing because I said simply that the organisation that was named gave more than a little difficulty for the NUT and three other teachers' organisations while people were trying to resolve the dispute. Of course, there are headmasters and headmistresses in the NUT—a few. There are some in another organisation that has also played a part. But there is no problem about me withdrawing my remarks because they are consistent with with what I have just said. The report will show that.

Mr. Flannery: We are talking about ACAS and head teachers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that some are also in other unions — very few. The secretary of the Burnham committee was a head teacher. He was helped there by people who are no friends of ours. After their antics, he was removed. He is not secretary any longer, and he had only his own vote on the committee.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows the issue inside out. In almost every education debate he has made a contribution and kept hon. Members informed about the conflict. There is no doubt about that. My hon. Friend referred to the component parts of the problem, and I tend to the view that generally he has got the facts right. So I hope that Labour Members will agree with my hon. Friend in his summing-up of what has been a side show. I said that now that the head teachers were coming over to our side, that was welcome, and it could mean that we get more support. My hon. Friend and I are saying, "Come over a bit more quickly. Do not play the Tory game, because when they have used you, just like the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, they will get rid of you. They will not be bothered about you after you have been used."
I was about to refer to the Government's fiddling on the issue. Their interference is another example of the fiddles with which they have become associated in every single Department of State. One can go through them all, and find their dirty pawmark on almost every single Bill, the

unemployment figures, and the twisted trade figures. They have now increased the invisibles to £900 million a month. Nobody believes it. What about their attitude towards the City? Now they are fiddling the figures for the teachers. They have tried to argue that they will give more money to all teachers, when as a result of the fiddling they will give more money, with some exceptions, to those on the highest pay. That is another reason why we supported the ACAS resolution of the dispute as opposed to that of the Tories. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow had a sore throat earlier. I am getting the same complaint.

Dr. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend will speak, and he does not have a sore throat.

Dr. Godman: I sincerely regret intervening again but it may well be that where the amendment reads, "under the auspices" it might have been better if it had read, "with the assistance and advice of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service." For all its faults and despite its history, it is an advisory, conciliation and arbitration service and if it were to be introduced into the educational sector of England and Wales, far from weakening the trade union movement, it could be argued that it might well strengthen the trade union involvement in collective bargaining in the education world.

4 am

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has made that important point before. It brings us back to the argument about the role of ACAS. I do not think that the teachers would want to see their collective bargaining eroded in any way by ACAS. I do not think for one moment that any of the teachers' unions, from whatever side of the fence, would necessarily want to say, "Let us get to ACAS at the earliest possible moment." They want to find a solution to the dispute so that their pay is increased, they are able to teach the kids better, they have improved facilities to work in, the pupil-teacher ratio is lower, and the extra space arising in some schools because of falling rolls is used to advantage. They want to do all those things and resolve them on their own without having to run to ACAS every five minutes, even though, on this occasion, ACAS managed to get a resolution of the dispute.

Mr. Frank Cook: I must apologise for my inability to catch my hon. Friend's eye previously when he was referring to the nature of the Department of Education and Science and its similarity with other Departments. He said that there were the same sort of pawmarks over this measure. My hon. Friend will recall the high regard in which I hold the animal kingdom and I wonder whether he would consider changing "pawmarks" to "palm prints".

Mr. Skinner: That is an indication of the way things change in one's own lifetime. It is an interesting aside. It is worth noting that when I became a Member of the House 16 years ago no one would have made that sort of contribution, yet now it has some relevance. It almost has a sort of ACAS imprint on it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) will settle for "imprint", I am quite happy. Some of my family would share that view. I was brought up in a hurly burly environment where such a thing would not have been mentioned. Now it is part of the evolution that is taking


place, as we see ACAS grow, ACAS develop and ACAS observed, and all the other things that are happening to ACAS.

Mr. Dixon: ACAS postponed.

Mr. Skinner: We see all those things and we see headmasters switching from Tory to Labour. That is welcome. Now we see that a greater interest is being taken in this place in the animal kingdom which, let us hope, does not have to go to ACAS to get its problems solved.

Mr. Michie: I should like to refer to ACAS—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we do have some dilemmas. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that ACAS does have a role to play but that it should not stem the growth of trade unions. However, if the Bill goes through and its results are reflected in other jobs and professions, ACAS will be useless anyway. Basically, we shall have dictatorship from the top. Arbitration will be out of the window because the Secretary of State will have all the power.

Mr. Skinner: We covered that point earlier at some length. We have had that valuable discussion which, I think will assist in shaping our own attitudes towards ACAS in the future.
Let us suppose that the Government remain in office for another 12 months. Personally, I doubt that very much. I think that the Prime Minister has already put March on the calendar. She is waiting for the first little patch of blue in the sky and then she will go. March is the first possible date. If there is no blue in the sky then, it will be postponed until May or June, and so on. I think that ACAS will be playing a role in various other disputes. For instance, local government officers now have a vested interest in joining the growing army of Labour voters in the next general election.
I come now to the philosophical point in the Government's attitude to free collective bargaining, because that is the kernel of the amendment. Last week, when the Secretary of State first announced his intentions on this, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and one or two others made their contributions. I thought that what I said on that occasion would form the basis of my speech today, but I have had to deal with ACAS at rather greater length, as the House knows. I had intended to follow up what I said to the Secretary of State on that occasion—that the Government were elected not to interefere.
The night before the Secretary of State made his statement there was a debate about 300 people sacked by J. E. Hanger. The Minister replying to that debate said that it was not for the Government to interfere between the artificial limb makers and the company that had sacked them. I wondered where this lot would end. We had the same arguement on the Silent Night dispute and in every Government statement under the sun, but the plight of the artificial limb makers struck home with me because they were dealing with thousands of disabled people. Yet the Government insisted time and again that they could not possibly interfere. The very next day the Secretary of State for Education and Science comes along and says that he intends to interfere with teachers' pay. That shows the Government's hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

They could not intervene to save the jobs of the artifical limb makers at Roehampton, because the Government were in cahoots with the company that had sacked those 300 men and women.
That is why the teachers are so upset. Almost every one of them in the Lobby today was asking what was all this nonsense about interference when the Government had been saying for seven years that they could not possibly interfere with anything—including OPEC oil prices, though that was certainly a "kid 'em and cod 'em" exercise. The Government's philosophy has been non-interference—let the market place decide—but suddenly they decide that it is time to poke their noses into the affairs of 400,000 teachers and their families.
We are here tonight because we can see the hypocrisy of the Government's position. Let there be no mistake about it. Whatever the results of their little private polls, based on cobbled-up questions, a wider group than teachers will see that a Government elected on a mandate of non-interference with free collective bargaining are now dictated to 400,000 teachers what their wages should be. Moreover, they are tilting things in such a way that, by and large, those at the top of the scale will get more and those at the bottom will get less. That is injustice on a grand scale. That is why we have had to fight the Bill, and why we have kept in order. There is no question of our wanting to stray from the subject of the debate. We have used our opportunities today to try to satisfy the promises and pledges that we have made to the hundreds of people outside and in our constituencies during the past few weeks while the argument has raged. We would not be doing our duty if we did not try to fight the Bill line by line, clause by clause. There is a long way to go. I have not been on my feet for this length of time because I want to be, but because I have to make that contribution to the group who are fighting the Government.
Like many others, the teachers have taken part in the destabilisation of the Government. It must be destabilisation if the Government resort to the tactics that they said they would never use—intervention. The teachers have something to their credit. They have helped to destabilise the Government, even in their last few months in office. We have to support them until the Bill is concluded.
If the Government had any sense, even at this late stage they would withdraw the Bill. They would see the writing on the wall. We have heard hardly one speech from Conservative Members, and we noticed that in the Division on the previous group of amendments the Government could not get more than 219 votes—out of a total of 390 Members.

Dr. Godman: They are the lumpen bourgeoisie.

Mr. Skinner: They have had to give pairs and bisques, I think they are called—a type of absentee ticket—to some of their people because they do not have the stomach to fight. When their majority falls to 50-odd, as it did in the previous Division, the Government are being told something.
When the Government do not have the decency to acknowledge that, after all of their rabbiting on about ballots for all groups of workers, they will not allow the teachers to have the opportunity to have a ballot to decide the issue, that makes their hypocrisy even worse.
People see through such things. They might think that the spy thing is a bit complicated and be fed up with


reading about it, but there is an inconsistency in letting one lot of people print a book but not letting another lot print one. By and large, voters see the simple issues. They know where the Government stand on non-intervention and market forces and what the Prime Minister has said time and again about them, but here they are, in their last days, poking their nose in on a grand scale.
Teachers have an advantage over some groups of workers. They can communicate to a wider audience than even miners. Miners spend their days down the pit or at the pit top. They are in a closed community. To some extent, the same is true of steel workers. When they are tackled, the ripples to do not spread as far as they should, but teachers have to talk in their vocation—it is the essence of what they have to do. They also see through hypocrisy quickly.
The Secretary of State has turned round. I thought that he was about to bow like he did at the Tory party conference. I have never seen a bigger fool in Christendom than when he bowed. His head nearly touched the floor, he was so elated at the fact that he had been able to read for about 20 minutes from two of those boards that Reagan introduced. He has the cheek to tell teachers, with their difficult job, that he will regulate their pay, when they have a proper system of collective bargaining. He has the cheek to interfere on that scale. It is a form of unilateralism. He is a unilateralist on teachers' pay.
4.15 am
The debate has been essential as part of the several components that make up the details of the national debate. I do not want anybody to tell me that the settlement is too costly, and there is not enough money to find the extra for the teachers that the ACAS settlement will mean, when it is not much more than the Government have to offer. There is plenty of money in the country. The Prime Minister came back from the Common Market the other day, and she was not talking about non-intervention. She was trying not to talk about the fact that there will soon be a big fat bill for the Common Market gravy train. Those out there are living off the backs of teachers and the rest of them, and are producing little or nothing, but the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, in the very week when the Government are hammering the teachers, and says that she is to bring in Supplementary Estimates to bail out the Common Market. That is on top of the £6,000 million that has already been paid net by the British taxpayers, including teachers, to keep this crazy ship afloat.
Who are these people to talk about the teachers having assessments? Who has assessed this lot? Who decided that they were capable of running the country's affairs, when they cannot even keep their own spies in order? Who are they, when they can let the pound sink to the bottom of the Thames, they wreck business men and women and, the foreign reserves are lower than they are in Italy, after seven years of Thatcherism? Who are these people to tell the teachers that they cannot have an ACAS settlement because they know better?
Who assessed the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), the Minister for foot and mouth? Who assessed them for pay? They all get the same money. An articulate teacher or headmaster might want to assess that lot, and make variations on the scale for these Ministers. What would they pay the Secretary of State? What is he really worth?

Mr. Bermingham: Not a lot.

Mr. Skinner: There are all those Tory party officials masquerading as Ministers. What would be the assessment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? He admitted from the Dispatch Box that he does only about 15 hours a month for his big, fat ministerial salary. What would happen to his salary if he had to be assessed in the way that the Secretary of State is telling the teachers that they should be assessed? He would not be rushing across to America without his passport. How does he do that? Not many other people could manage it. We do not want the Tory Government telling teachers that they should be assessed when they cannot even do their own job properly.
We are battling on behalf of the teachers as part of their campaign. That is why we met them today and we have kept our promise to battle on their behalf. Without exception, we in the Opposition—I cannot speak for the SDP and the Liberal party, because most of their hon. Members have not even poked their noses into the debate—are determined to put the teachers' case, about which they lobbied us today. If the Secretary of State had any sense he would take this bill back from whence it came.

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has accused me of speaking quietly. I hope that when I speak quietly I sometimes speak with some common sense. This dangerous little Bill and the amendment are important.
Before I speak about the Bill and the amendment, I shall correct my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover on another matter. By doing that I shall perhaps add to his fund of knowledge about Hangers and the disablement workers. He is probably aware that BTR owns that company and is trying to take over Pilkington in my constituency. I am worried and the people of St. Helens are worried about that, because we do not want to see happen to Pilkington what has happened to Hangers. I hope that I can rely on the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover when we fight the proposed takeover by BTR. I notice that he nods. I am grateful for his support.
I admit that I have immediately gone off track, but perhaps in my own quiet way I can return to it. I worry when the conceit of power reaches dictatorship. On the teachers' pay dispute there is conceit of power on the part of the Secretary of State. I do not apologise for calling the Secretary of State conceited in his belief that he has supreme ability to judge what a teacher is worth, what he or she should be paid, and how teachers' settlements should be arrived at. Who will decide? Will the Secretary of STate personally decide that a teacher in Cowley hill school in St. Helens will be graded 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, or will he put in one of his minions to do it. I worry about that.

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend talks about the arrogance of Ministers taking power under this Bill. I was struck by what Louis MacNeice said over 40 years ago about Oxford dons. He said:
They have charm without warmth and knowledge without understanding.
That charge can be levied against this doltish lot. Does my hon. Friend agree that this amendment is double-edged, in that it provides ACAS with a glorious opportunity to put its chequered history to one side and to develop in a much more independent fashion?

Mr. Bermingham: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I listened with interest to his debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. Many of us have much to learn from that debate because it enabled us to see the two sides of the argument about ACAS. As my hon. Friend the Member of Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is aware, ACAS grew from perhaps the first tentative discussions on industry by Professor John Wood in the early negotiations into which he was called, long before ACAS existed, to seek to resolve by conciliation. The idea of conciliation, diplomacy, discussion and resolution can be explored further in future.
I was referring to the Secretary of State and I used the word "conceit". I stand by that. I say "arrogance", and I stand by that, too. It is being said that if the Government do not like what two completely independent bodies arrive at by way of negotiation—

The Chairman: Order. I am having some difficulty in following the hon. Member, and that will continue to be the position if he persists in speaking while turned away from the Chair. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to turn more towards the Chair.

Mr. Bermingham: My deepest apologies, Mr. Walker. I hate the thought that you might miss one word of the pearls of wisdom that I seek to drop. I shall naturally turn to face you, Mr. Walker, and turn away from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. My hon. Friend raised such an interesting matter that I felt the courtesy of addressing him was necessary. I appreciate, Mr. Walker, that I should have addressed you.
When two parties reach a solution to a problem, it ill behoves someone else to walk in and say, "I don't like it. I shall destroy it. I shall take it away. I alone have the right to decide." Why is this happening? Why has the Secretary of State felt it necessary to say to the teaching profession, "You may negotiate with those who employ you, who are in day-to-day contact with you, but, if I do not like your solution, I shall do it my way." It is rather like a child in a school playground who wants to join in the ball game, and when he does not get his own way he steals the ball. That is the arrogance that has developed over the past seven years.
When people in society reach agreement and the Government start to steal the ball, thinking that they alone have the monopoly of wisdom, we are reaching a dangerous state. My great fear is that we shall return to the conditions that applied in the 1930s, which were summed up as follows:
Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I was a Protestant so I didn't speak up.
We must remember how the quotation develops, which is as follows:
Then they came for me … By that time there was no one to speak up for anyone.
The danger of the road that we are now treading is that the Government seem to believe that they have a monopoly of wisdom and that anyone who might take a slightly different view is utterly wrong. The teachers and the local authorities can no longer negotiate because they may not come to the answer that the Government want.
The Government say that the trade unions are wrong. They said that they were wrong during the miners' strike and they took away their rights. With the miners, they took away the pits. That was quicker. Where does this

road end? When the Government debate an idea in the House, they work on the principle that they have a majority of 160 votes or more, that it does not matter what anyone else says and that they will steamroller through their policy.
The consideration of the Bill in Committee should not be taking place on the Floor of the House. The Bill should be considered by a Standing Committee in the same way as the majority of Bills. The Government's conceit and that of the Secretary of State is demonstrated by their view that they have some divine right to steamroller their policies through the House and to change the order, as it were, because that suits them. The Secretary of State leans back, closes his eyes and appears to be going to sleep. It does not matter what any of us say. He wants his Bill and the votes for it are to be found in the corridors and cubbyholes of this place. The only thing that we can do is to argue—at 4.29 in the morning—and we have reached only amendment No. 4.
Democracy is valuble. The Government are treading a very dangerous road by taking the view, "We do not care what anyone else says. We will get our way." That philosophy has destroyed more societies than any other in history. That philosophy destroyed the Roman empire and created the problems of the 1930s in Europe, and it is destroying this land. The conceit and danger that flows from the contempt for opposition creates dictatorship but does not sustain democracy. That is why at half-past four in the morning I ask the Government and the Secretary of State to think again. They should allow the Bill time. They should listen to what is being said and be aware of the dangers. There is no monopoly of wisdom in government or in the Civil Service. There is a right to dissent.
4.30 am
Under the International Labour Organisation agreements there is a fundamental right for an employee to negotiate with an employer. I know that the Government do not give a fig for international arrangements. I cite another simple example that will occur later today. In the Criminal Justice Bill, clause 22 flies in the face of agreed conventions on refugees. That again shows the conceit of a Government who tear up their international arrangements.
The people of this land—[Interruption.] It seems that someone has a hearing aid and we are getting a whistling noise. I get very paranoid. We have this Australian spy business. Apparently everything is bugged nowadays, and I am beginning to wonder whether one of us is bugged.
I come back to the point about democracy —[Interruption.] I think I know where the noise is coming from. It is in the Reporters' Gallery. Obviously a machine is going wrong.
There is a fundamental principle at stake — the right of a human being to try to negotiate his or her own conditions of service, but not with the all-powerful central state system. I can imagine what the Secretary of State would say if we lived in a halcyon society under a Labour Government who suggested that the education service should be run from London rather than by local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman would be screaming about a centralist society, extreme Left-wing views and so on. What is he seeking to do? Why cannot the Derbyshire, Cumbria, Hampshire or Norfolk county councils


negotiate with their own employees? Why must the Secretary of State take the power himself? There is no justification for what he seeks to do.
Very gently, I ask the Secretary of State to accept the amendment, because then there would be a litte fairness and a little less dictatorship. If the Secretry of State is a democrat, he will agree with me. If he is a potential dictator, he will disagree. I await with interest to see what he does.

Mr. Fisher: We have had a good debate, not least because we have had the benefit of hearing—apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice)—no fewer than eight of my hon. Friends making speeches and another 12 who have intervened. However, what has been lacking in the debate was any serious dialogue from the Government. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke for six minutes and the Minister for 21 minutes.
We heard nothing from the Government about the principles behind ACAS and its useful role in the negotiations, or about our amendments dealing with ACAS machinery and the Nottingham settlement. I regret that, because these are vital issues. The House will regret that the Government choose to remain silent.
From the Liberal spokesman we had only an attempt to close our debate. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) suffers from "speedophobia" and believes that we should rush our consideration of the Bill. He will agree that the issues are important and that the House has never had such a long discussion on ACAS machinery. I assure the hon. Member that all aspects of the Bill will be discussed. We are seeking to compress into a short time the scrutiny that would take five or six weeks in a Standing Committee. If we were upstairs he would not complain that we were still considering clause 1. We shall get through the Bill.

Mr. Freud: I am glad to hear that. I was concerned because the Bill has 200 lines and we have spent over 12 hours on the first five. Substantial contributions must be made on the other clauses. We on the Liberal Benches made it clear on Second Reading that we were content with clause 1. To remind us time and again that we are honouring our commitment on Second Reading ill becomes the party with which we have much in common.

Mr. Fisher: I take issue with the hon. Gentleman. There can be little in common between our parties if he is content with clause 1. He cannot have listened to the debate. We object to the arbitrary repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. We agree that the Burnham negotiating machinery should be reformed radically and we have tabled constructive amendments suggesting how it should be reformed.
It seems that the Liberal party is content with a Bill which abolishes the Remuneration of Teachers Act and replaces it with the Secretary of State. The first line contains a fundamental principle and if the hon. Member does not understand that fact, he has not been listening to the debate. A fundamental democratic right is being taken away from trade unionists and local authorities, and enormous, amazing powers are centralised on the Government. When we inherit those powers we shall repeal them and produce democratic, accountable collective bargaining machinery. That is the only way forward.
We have attempted, successfully I think, to put the arguments over the past few hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North said that we would give the matter serious and detailed consideration and I believe that we have done so. My hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) all have considerable industrial relations and trade union negotiating expertise. They spoke on those aspects and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Mr. Dormand), who was a chief education officer, and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who was a head teacher, gave us the benefit of their expertise.
It is difficult to select one speech from the debate, but I think that the Committee would feel it wrong not to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) who made a fluent, well-reasoned and effective speech in his first Committee contribution.
There is often not much new material in these debates, but my hon. Friend the Member for Easington produced one piece of new material when he read out the letter from the chairman of the employers' side of the management panel of the Burnham primary and secondary committee. Perhaps the Secretary of State and other hon. Members will receive the letter tomorrow.
The chairman said:
I have written to the Secretary of State calling upon him to reconsider his decision … The Government's Bill … will make the situation in the schools even worse"—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am not surprised by that letter.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Secretary of State really saying that he is not surprised that the employers' side on the Burnham committee is making such statements? The chairman says that the Bill is "retrograde and undemocratic". If the chairman of the employers' side feels like that, who agrees with the Secretary of State? Only the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who knows something about education, has supported the right hon. Gentleman in the debate. His other hon. Friends have been conspicuously absent. They must know in their heart of hearts—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We know that it is a filibuster; that is the reason.

Mr. Fisher: Conservatives talk about a filibuster, but they were quite keen to talk in our first debate. When we discuss collective bargaining, ACAS and constructive alternatives for a negotiating machinery only one Conservative Member wants to support the Secretary of State. It is very interesting.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not clear that the Minister has an utter and arrogant contempt for all of us and that he has a special contempt for the chairman of the management side? Although local employers pay 54 per cent. of teachers' salaries, the Minister regards himself as the chairman of the management side and, indeed, does not want a management side. He will do it all himself.

Mr. Fisher: When my hon. Friend referred to the Minister having contempt, I am sure that he meant to refer to the Secretary of State. All hon. Members will agree that the Minister of State did not show contempt. She showed


ignorance and a lack of coherence in her arguments at some stage. She made an attempt to justify the Government's position on this matter. As my hon. Friend pointed out in an intervention, yet again, as she and some of her hon. Friends did on Second Reading on Monday, she made a good case for re-negotiating and finding a better way of handling the negotiating machinery. She made a good case for reforming Burnham. We agree with her on that matter, and so will the unions and the employers—the local education authorities. She did not go on to make a case for replacing it. She basically came back to the one thing that the Secretary of State said ad nauseam since he stopped bad-mouthing the Nottingham agreement and calling it a fiasco.
The Secretary of State has changed his tack because he has realised that he was wrong about that matter. He has continued to say that there are not enough incentive points. He believes that there should be five. There are two in the ACAS settlement, and we refer to them in the amendments. The NUT has made it clear that it would be interested in talking about a third point. The hon. Member for Ealing, North, who knows a little more about education and has had greater experience in this field than some other hon. Members—though probably not more than the Minister of State—said that he recognised that five may be wrong and that perhaps we should talk about four. As my hon. Friend has said, we ask whether there should be five, four or three incentive points. That fairly fine difference—perhaps the difference between the two parties—is one incentive point.
The Secretary of State is prepared to take these extraordinary measures, constitutionally and through Parliament, and give himself extraordinary powers to take away democratic rights from trade unionists, teachers and local authorities—and from Conservative local authorities, many of whom object just as thoroughly as Labour-controlled authorities. They know what it means to education. That is all for the sake of, possibly, one incentive point.
Can the Secretary of State really be so petty and silly? That is what it comes down to. Parents will understand that. The difference between the two positions is probably one or two incentive points. It is not a matter of principle, it is a matter of detail to be negotiated. The Secretary of State knows that but he is too proud or too arrogant—may be he has other motives—but he will not negotiate or conciliate. He has not asked them to come and talk to him. Frankly, it is a disgrace to his office that he will not do so. He puts Parliament, the teaching profession and the future of the way in which education is negotiated in this country in jeopardy for such a small, fine point. He is standing on his pride. He wishes to see everybody crawl to him and accept his terms.
Time and again, the Secretary of State has said, in answer to questions, "They can come and talk to me, but on my terms. They must accept it. I can move no further." is that the way in which a pragmatist—a politician or somebody who wants to find an answer—should behave? Of course it is not. The teachers made that clear this afternoon. They were not all Labour supporters—they were not even all alliance supporters. Amazingly, there were probably some people who voted Tory at the last general election. Whether they will do so again after this remains to be seen. They know the reality. They know

that the Secretary of State will not dare, and does not care, to negotiate. They will take that message back to their schools and talk to parents. Parents will understand that, too. Not only is the Secretary of State wrong in this matter, but he is making a stupid mistake.
If the Secretary of State considers that he is so right and so clever and that the country will believe his view of things, will he back that judgment and have a ballot of teachers? The Government are keen on ballots when they think that they will suit their convenience. The Secretary of State knows very well that, if teachers in all six unions—even the ones that do not like the ACAS agreement, such as the NAS and the NAHT—were asked whether they supported the Secretary of State's statement, they would probably give a derisory vote. I should be amazed if he got 10 or 15 per cent. of teachers to agree with him if he put it to a straight ballot. The Minister of State says, "Oh no, we cannot possibly do that." Of course, the Government can do that. They can table a new clause. They have given themselves amazing powers in the Bill, so they can certainly give themselves the powers to consult and ballot teachers. But they will not dare do that in this place or in the other place because they know the result.
The Secretary of State not only is not interested in conciliation, he is not even interested in hearing anyone's opinion but his. I am sure that he has the votes to railroad this measure through eventually, but he is wrong. He is making a terrible mistake and is certainly not making any friends.
The Minister of State talked about the role of the Secretary of State. Of course there is a role for the Secretary of State, whoever are in power. At the moment the Secretary of State rightly contributes 46·4 per cent. to the teachers' salary bill. Paragraph 7·4 of the ACAS agreement states that that will be discussed. There is a role for the Secretary of State, but not the arrogant, dominant role that he envisages. Surely, the right hon. Gentleman can understand that. He should think again.
The amendments are simple. They provide for the setting up of the negotiating machinery agreed at ACAS and for the determination of teachers' pay by agreement. Sadly, the Minister of State did not mention new clause 1—I am sure that that was an oversight—on teachers' pension arrangements. I am sure that the Minister would agree that pension arrangements for teachers are important for those 400,000 workers. It is sad that that measure was not considered because it is important. We should like to vote on it separately at an appropriate time, Mr. Walker. I ask you to consider that, Sir. The pension arrangements for 400,000 workers are worthy of a separate vote.
The arguments have been well rehearsed, so I shall not go through them again. We have been through them all. The Secretary of State may say that his door is open—

Mr. Flannery: His mind is shut.

Mr. Fisher: —but, once the teachers get through it, there is nothing that they can say to him, except, "Yes, we agree with you." My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough took my line, although it was not a very original one. The right hon. Gentleman's mind is shut. I suspect that he was deaf to most of the debate as well. He can laugh. There have been many references to the right hon. Gentleman's smile. He is not being very clever. He is not bein,g politically shrewd or wise in the Bill.


The Government have given no answers in the debate. They are, perhaps, drunk with their majority. Immediately after the last general election, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) lost his place in the Cabinet because he said that majorities of this size were not very healthy and that they led to trouble. The Government's majority has led to various sorts of trouble. The Secretary of State and the Government are so drunk with their majority, their rhetoric and hostility towards trade unions, industrial relations, local government, decentralisation and the public sector—in this case, the maintained sector of education—that it is leading them astray. People would call their actions idiocy. The Opposition would call it rank injustice. We shall certainly vote for the amendment and we ask for a separate vote on pension arrangements, Mr. Walker.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 31, Noes 131.

Division no. 27]
[4.55 am


AYES


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Madden, Max


Bermingham, Gerald
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Robert
Michie, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cohen, Harry
Nellist, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Radice, Giles


Dalyell, Tam
Raynsford, Nick


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman
Stott, Roger


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Don Dixon.


Livsey, Richard





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dunn, Robert


Baldry, Tony
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Favell, Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Benyon, William
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, John
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Churchill, W. S.
Hayes, J.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hickmet, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cope, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Corrie, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Neubert, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Newton, Tony


Jessel, Toby
Nicholls, Patrick


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Norris, Steven


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Osborn, Sir John


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Knowles, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Latham, Michael
Pawsey, James


Lawler, Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Lightbown, David
Portillo, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Powley, John


Lord, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lyell, Nicholas
Raffan, Keith


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Malins, Humfrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Marlow, Antony
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Merchant, Piers
Walden, George


Miller, Hal (B'grove)



Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Moate, Roger
Mr. Tony Durant.


Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 5, at end insert
'except as it refers to teachers in further education.'

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 1, line 6, after 'of, insert 'school'.
No. 29, in line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Bennett: The Opposition expect this to be a fairly short debate, compared with the earlier debates. Our intention is to probe rather than to criticise the Government. We are delighted that the Government have not decided unilaterally to abolish the right of collective bargaining to those who work in further education. However, we should like the Minister of State to explain why the Government are so pleased with the further education negotiations and would like them to continue in their present form although they believe that it is necessary to abolish collective bargaining for those who teach in schools.
Throughout the greater part of the negotiations the same negotiator has led both the further education and the schools negotiations and has striven to obtain a settlement. A fair number of unions and professional associations are involved in the further education negotiations. The local authorities and the teacher unions have conducted the negotiations under their own auspices and have not had to call in ACAS. As ACAS has been brought in only to facilitate the school negotiations, that is no reason for the Government's view that one set of negotiations should be dealt with in one way and the other set in another.
I accept that good progress has been made. Perhaps that is why the Government are pleased about the further education negotiations in September on structure and the new form of appraisal. However, the negotiations have collapsed. Is that why the Government are pleased? Are


they pleased that the talks have collapsed? I hope that the negotiations will resume in January. If the talks are to make reasonable progress in January, the Government must say how much money is available for the further education settlement. The school negotiations continued for a very long time and they were unable to make reasonable progress because of the former Secretary of State's reluctance to tell the teacher unions and the local authorities how much money was available.
If there is to be any prospect of resuming the talks on restructuring further education and on appraisal, the Government must find about £160 million. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that that money will be made available, or that at least the Government will say when they will be able to inform the local authorities and the teachers' unions about how much money is to be made available. If they do not provide that information, the negotiators will be blindfolded and their job will be made extremely difficult.
Those who work in further education at all levels have slipped below average earnings by at least as much as the teachers, and in some cases they have slipped even further behind. For example, on a cash index of 100 in 1975, following Houghton and the adjustments to teachers' salaries at all levels, the income of lecturers in further education in 1986 has increased to 274. If that is compared with the average earnings of non-manual workers, both male and female, over the same period, the cash index has increased from 100 to 359. That shows that those in further education have slipped even further behind than school teachers.
I hope that tonight the Government will say something about part-time workers and the increasing number of people in further education who are on short-term contracts. Short-term contracts are a cause of considerable concern to those in further education, in particular to those who are on contracts financed by Manpower Services Commission funds.
The short-term funding in FE causes a great deal of concern and alarm. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on the Government's thinking about the negotiations with regard to the effect on the number of part-time and short-term contracts that are available in FE colleges.
We also ask the Minister to give serious thought to the anomalies that will develop as a result of the Bill in regard to pupils of 16, 17 and 18. Some will attend sixth form traditional schools, others will attend sixth form colleges, which will be under schools regulations, and teachers will have all forms of collective bargaining taken away from them by the legislation. Other pupils in the same age group doing exactly the same courses will be in FE or tertiary colleges where the lecturers will be under the Burnham provisions for further education and will retain the rights to collective bargaining and negotiations on their rates of pay. We welcome the fact that they are retaining those powers, but it is anomalous to take them away from one group and leave them with the other.
I press the Government to give us their views on the way in which the talks have gone on new structure and appraisal. Considerable dissatisfaction is felt by the local authority associations and the further education unions about the Burnham FE structure. It would be appropriate

if a new negotiating body was developed, perhaps before some of the acrimony that developed in the last years of the Burnham negotiations develops in further education.
I hope that the Minister will justify to us the differences between the treatment of schools and FE and give us clear information about the current position of the talks and how much money will be made available to facilitate progress. Is she satisfied with the suggested structure? I hope that she will refer to appraisal, give her views on the problems of the short-term contracts, and above all, say how much money will be available to make the move forward. I hope that the hon. Lady can give us constructive answers. If we can make real progress, we might be able to have a fairly short debate.

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall address the amendments in the order in which they appear on the Amendment Paper.
Amendment No. 6 would repeal the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 only as regards school teachers' pay, leaving its provisions in force for the future determination of further education pay. The weaknesses of the Burnham system apply just as much to further education pay as to that of school teachers. There is an unwarranted dislocation between pay and other conditions of service in both cases. Everyone is agreed that new machinery is needed that brings both aspects together.
In further education, there is already a national joint council of local authority employers and unions, which is trying, albeit with limited success at present, to look at pay and conditions together. The Government are willing to leave determination of those matters to such a body for the future.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my hon. Friend refresh my memory? Is it not the case that the Association of Polytechnic Teachers is not on that body? I have a terrible feeling that we are doing enormous damage to a union in the polytechnic world, of which we have always thought highly. As a result of this Government's measures it has been placed on the Burnham committee, but the provisions in this Bill deny that role.

Mrs. Rumbold: Although the Association of Polytechnic Teachers has a place on the Burnham further education committee, it has rarely been invited to sit in the negotiating chamber with the committee. The Government's present proposals would leave it open for it to apply to the national joint council. It represents a substantial body of interested people. We are told that both the unions and employers are reasonable and would be only too willing to accept representations from properly constituted unions. One would hope that we would have proof of that in the near future and that it will be made a full member of the national joint council, which we propose to leave in place.

Dr. Hampson: With respect, I do not think that many Conservative Members would accept that as sufficient. We all supported strongly the application of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers to have fair representation on Burnham. That teachers union felt badly discriminated against because of its strong position in the polytechnic world, as against the further education world in general, and it had problems with the other major union. We would like to hear that the Government will do something to guarantee that it will have a place in the new system immediately should these provisions come into effect.

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I assure him that we are conscious of the fact that there is an injustice in the position of the APT, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will undertake to look carefully at its position.
Amendment No. 16 would limit the continuation of existing pay arrangements, until superseded, to school teachers. Unless other amendments were made, the pay scales and pensions affecting further education teachers would fall with the passage of the Bill, rather than when superseded by future agreements between employers and unions, as intended. The sub-paragraph provides that existing arrangements will continue until superseded by new provisions made for school teachers under the provision of the Bill and, for further education teachers, agreed between employers and teachers. The amendment would mean that the present further education pay scales and provisions would fall with the enactment of the Bill, whether or not new provisions existed to take their place. That cannot be sensible.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If amendment No. 6 were carried it would make sense.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am not certain about that.
Amendment No. 29 makes it clear that further education teachers and employers are to be empowered to settle matters between themselves or in such other manner as they may agree. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the money to be available for employers to negotiate the pay for further education teachers. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that any new money that the employers negotiate will have to be found from within their own resources. I believe that the employers are well apprised of that situation. If there are difficulties within the negotiations at present, I feel confident, as I am sure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish does, since we have been hearing about, and extolling the glories, wonders and magnificence of, the national joint council, that things will be clarified in January when the talks resume and that a satisfactory conclusion will be found for the dilemma that apparently seems to exist within the national joint council.
I have covered the points that have been raised. All the negotiations, of course, are between the employers and the unions. All the matters which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish raised about part-time teachers, teachers in tertiary colleges and so on are for those people to discuss in the joint council. I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Richard Livsey: The amendments set one group of teachers against another. We need to see some unification in the profession, yet here we see the Government making attempts to split it. Teachers in the further education sector will apparently be the subject of negotiations under present arrangements, whereas those in schools will be subject to another set of rules. That shows a certain amount of inconsistency in the Government's approach to this matter. For example, teachers in sixth form colleges will be included in the arrangements, while other teachers will not. That is extremely divisive.
The subject of appraisal in the further education sector is of great interest to me, as I worked in that sector before

coming to the House. The career structure in that sector is not at all clear at present and the differences in pay and conditions between LI and L2 lecturers and senior lecturers leave a good deal to be desired. If a better career structure can be provided through amendments to the Bill and discussions about it, that will be a great improvement on the present situation. The erosion of pay scales in recent years has not been in the best interests of futher education.
Pay in the further education sector has also fallen sadly behind. It would be impossible to bring back Houghton overnight, as lecturers' pay has fallen 33 per cent. behind in the 10 years since the Houghton agreements. In my previous occupation, I noted with interest that my salary as a senior lecturer before coming to the House about 16 months ago was the equivalent of the top scale for a police constable. After a degree, various amounts of training and 14 years lecturing, that is disgraceful. Police constables are valuable members of society, but they do not spend their days instructing 50, 60 or even 100 students, imparting knowledge and sharing it with those students. If the present arrangements are left in place, as the amendment suggests, I trust that the FE sector will get a fairer crack of the whip. Having been a member of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education for many years, I know that we have not had a fair crack of the whip for some time and that there has been tremendous erosion of our position. It is also important to achieve proper pension arrangements for the FE sector.
I think that I speak for my party in saying that it is an extremely divisive arrangement to split off the FE sector from other sectors.

Mr. Allen McKay: I am not very clear or very happy about the provision or about the Minister's reply. Many education authorities are now going in for tertiary colleges. I am not convinced that that is the best path to take. I have always been a strong supporter of sixth form colleges attached to schools. I appreciate some of the arguments in favour of tertiary colleges, but I am still not convinced. I do not see why they should provide better education opportunities because there are more students and a greater variety of teachers. Why should it be better for working-class children to have larger numbers when the public schools always go for smaller numbers?
I wonder why we are hiving off the further education sector. Why do we have a Bill which takes away the negotiating rights of teachers organisations? Is the Secretary of State looking further ahead? I understand that he is taking powers to introduce different rates of pay in different areas. Will local authorities negotiate separately with their staff? Is the Secretary of State prepared for that?

Mr. Fatchett: I do not know whether I should start by declaring an indirect interest, in that my wife is a teacher in further education. Perhaps I can act as a negotiator on her behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) warmed my heart when he talked about short-term contracts. I listened with interest on my wife's behalf to see whether the Minister came up with an answer to that problem. My hon. Friend was right to say that there has been a substantial growth in Manpower Service Commission funding for short-term contracts and in short-term contracts generally. It would have been interesting if the Minister had commented on that.
It would be churlish of me not to say that I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said. He spoke of lectureship scales in further education. He will have noticed that Ministers seem to have no difficulty with regard to scales when we are talking about further education, but that they have a limited and particular set of objectives when we come to teachers. If it is right to have scales in one sector, I should have thought that it would be right to have them in another.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish asked the Minister why there is disparity of treatment. The Minister said that there is a national joint council for further education teachers with which the Government are not prepared to interfere at this stage. I suspect that the Minister might join us on the next group of amendments, which suggest that we should have a national joint council for teachers.
I realise that the Minister is a fair person. She says that she likes a national joint council for further education, so I should have thought that she would be consistent and join us on the next group of amendments. I welcome her support and hope that it will be transferred into votes. Perhaps she will take the Secretary of State into the Lobby with her. We heard her say that the national joint council is the factor that makes all the difference.
As for scales and the collective bargaining machinery, teachers in primary and secondary education are treated differently from teachers in further education. We object to that fundamental difference, and the Minister has given no explanation for it.
5.30 am
We asked about one or two other detailed points—for example, money that may be available in the negotiations that will affect further education lecturers in the early part of 1987. What we really object to is the difference of treatment. We cannot understand how the Government can treat some teachers in one way and further education teachers in another. We are not asking that further education teachers be treated as badly as teachers in primary and secondary education — we are asking that teachers in primary and secondary education have their rights preserved. Because of the Minister's inadequate answer, and because of our fundamental objections to the Bill, we shall divide the Committee on amendment No. 6.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 27, Noes 124.

Division No. 28]
[5.30 am


AYES


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Clay, Robert
Nellist, David


Cohen, Harry
Parry, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Radice, Giles


Dalyell, Tam
Raynsford, Nick


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stott, Roger


Home Robertson, John



Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Derek Fatchett and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Allen McKay.


Michie, William






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Amess, David
Hickmet, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Hind, Kenneth


Ashby, David
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Batiste, Spencer
Jessel, Toby


Bendall, Vivian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Benyon, William
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Blackburn, John
Knowles, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Latham, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Lawler, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bottomley, Peter
Lilley, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lord, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lyell, Nicholas


Brinton, Tim
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Bruinvels, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Burt, Alistair
Maclean, David John


Butterfill, John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Malone, Gerald


Chope, Christopher
Marlow, Antony


Churchill, W. S.
Mather, Carol


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maude, Hon Francis


Conway, Derek
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Cope, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Corrie, John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Couchman, James
Moate, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dickens, Geoffrey
Moynihan, Hon C.


Dicks, Terry
Neubert, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Newton, Tony


Dover, Den
Nicholls, Patrick


Dunn, Robert
Norris, Steven


Durant, Tony
Oppenheim, Phillip


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Pawsey, James


Fallon, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Favell, Anthony
Powell, William (Corby)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Powley, John


Forman, Nigel
Proctor, K. Harvey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Raffan, Keith


Forth, Eric
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Franks, Cecil
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Freeman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gale, Roger
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Galley, Roy
Spencer, Derek


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Walden, George


Hampson, Dr Keith



Hanley, Jeremy
Tellers for the Noes:


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mr. Michael Portillo and


Harris, David
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 15, at end add—
'(3) The remuneration and other conditions of service of school teachers shall be negotiated by a National Joint Council established by the parties after the making of an Order by the Secretary of State.
(4) Schedule () has effect with respect to the composition of the National Joint Council and other matters'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 32, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, leave out from 'appoint' to 'on' in line 18 and insert—


'a National Joint Council nominated in accordance with Schedule (National Joint Council) to negotiate'.
No. 45, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'and shall establish a National Joint Council for the purpose of negotiating pay and other conditions of service for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales.'.
No. 49, in page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) The National Joint Council will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee. The balance of representatives on each side will be determined with the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.'.
No. 91, in page 2, line 4, after 'Committee' insert—
'or the National Joint Council'.
No. 104, in page 2, line 12, after 'Committee', insert—
'and the National Joint Council.'.
No. 105, in page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and add—
'(5) It shall thereafter be the duty of the Advisory Committee to report its conclusions on the matters referred to it to the Secretary of State and such body or bodies as may from time be constituted for the negotiation of national collective agreements between teachers and their employers and to advise such body or bodies further in their consideration of such matters.'.
No. 119, in page 2, line 14, at end add—
'(6) In drawing up the detailed constitution of the proposed National Joint Council the parties will make arrangements for dealing with local disputes over the interpretation and application of national agreements and for access to those arrangements.'.
No. 124, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, after 'Committee,' insert—
'and the National Joint Council.'
No. 211, in clause 6, page 4, line 2, leave out from beginning to end of line 3, and insert—
'"National Joint Council" means the National Joint Council on School Teachers Pay and Conditions established under section 1'.
No. 230, new schedule — Membership of National Joint Council—
'(1) The National Joint Council ("the Council") shall be comprised of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and the six unions represented before the passage of the Act on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee, and the balance of representation on each side shall be determined by the parties until the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
(2) The Secretary of State may, with the agreement of the organisations to be represented on the Council, make an Order to provide for the appointment by him of representatives to the Council in such numbers and according to such conditions as he may agree with all the parties.'.

Mr. Fisher: The amendments continue the debate that we have had on ACAS but in a rather different form. Amendment No. 30 seeks to set up a national joint council and the other amendments take up the detailed arrangements for that and reflect some of our proposals for changing the numbers of those who would participate in the work of the council.
The debate on ACAS, to which my hon. Friends contributed so fully and interestingly, showed that there were certain differences of opinion about the value of ACAS. Some of my hon. Friends expressed uncertainty about its long-term value because it is a third party in industrial negotiations between unions and employers. These fears are understandable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, however, there could often be a constructive and

useful role for ACAS, and that sometimes where there is a need for arbitration an arbitral body such as ACAS, being a third party, can achieve results that no one else can.
On the whole, the Opposition believe that, where possible, direct collective bargaining between unions and employers is preferable. We have some reservations about ACAS, though we recognise that in the teachers' dispute, which has continued for some time and where there have been difficulties in coming to decisions on pay and conditions, ACAS has played an invaluable role in bringing parties together. If the Secretary of State had been as constructive in bringing the parties together, we would not be in the present position, leaving aside the issue of when the money might have been provided.
There are occasions when we feel that ACAS is neither necessary nor appropriate, and we believe that the establishment of a national joint council would provide negotiating machinery for negotiating pay and conditions for all teachers in maintained schools in England and Wales. That form of negotiating machinery would be direct collective bargaining between union and employers and it is one possible answer. The amendments are drawn from the Nottingham agreement, which was arranged under the auspices of ACAS, for the consideration of the Committee. We recognise that we are not proposing the only way in which negotiating machinery can be established, but we believe that a national joint council would be infinitely superior to anything that is provided in the Bill. We believe also that trade unions and employers—the employers include many Conservative-controlled authorities—jointly believe that a national joint council would be much more effective than the Burnham machinery. The Minister of State waxed eloquent on why Burnham has imperfections, but some of the blame must be placed on the Government for interfering in the arbitration role of Burnham.
5.45 am
My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) referred to the reasons why Burnham has failed to come up with the goods and said that as authorities have been rate-capped and cash-limited, Burnham has been unable to operate as an effective deliverer of collective bargaining agreements. If the Secretary of State looks at the history of Burnham before he went to the Department of Education and Science, he will know that the Government have been meddling in the arbitration. For example, they prevented arbitration referrals from either employers or trade unions and said that it had to be the wish of both parties—effectively giving employers a veto over any transfer to arbitration. That is not constructive or helpful. Leaving aside the money problems, it is hardly surprising that Burnham has foundered, given that the Government have been meddling in the arbitration arrangements.
The unions and the local authorities are agreed that Burnham needs to be replaced. We suggest the national joint council—and join the unions and employers in doing so—as one possible solution. We do not feel that it is the only way, but we seek to propose a machinery that is collective and voluntary, in which the parties can participate and which fairly and democratically represents all the parties involved.

Dr. Godman: Does my hon. Friend agree that national joint industrial councils play an important role in other industries in helping to establish and maintain good industrial relations between employers and employees?

Mr. Fisher: I absolutely concur. Being well briefed, I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the documents put out this afternoon by the NUT, one page of which specifies the multiplicity of industries and sectors that have national joint councils, all of which work pretty well.
In one of his interesting contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) quoted from that list, so I shall not weary the Committee by repeating it. If hon. Members are fair-minded they will realise that national joint council exist in a number of sectors and industries—particularly in the public sector—and that they play a valuable role. We seek to extend that machinery to the education service.
We do not regard that as mischievous. This is not a wrecking amendment. It is genuinely constructive and is put forward with the confidence that on this occasion both the unions and employers feel that it is a constructive way forward. It is also put forward on the understanding that it is not the only way. We would be very happy to consider further amendments from the Government if they found an alternative method that was both democratic and collective.
Education is undoubtedly a complex service. As the 1944 Act says, it is a national service locally administered. The six unions involved traditionally represent sectors of education that have very different roots and expectations, and often there are different economic circumstances and conditions of service. Indeed, the Nottingham agreement clearly lays down the different conditions for main professional grade, entry grade, deputy heads, heads, and principals. Education is more complicated than most other professions or services. Multiple employers, and the Government having a role, create complex elements in the equation and make education a difficult bargaining area.
Expertise among those involved is needed. We must come up with the right answers on pay and conditions on a rolling basis. That cannot be left to the Secretary of State and his Civil Service advisers. An advisory committee cannot have any credibility, however good the Secretary of State's intentions, if he appoints its members. The Secretary of State must devise machinery which allows those involved to appoint the members. The Secretary of State is window-dressing and being disingenuous. He is fair-minded and must know that such a committee will not have credibility. Such a complicated service requires those directly involved—the trade unions and the employers—to be directly involved in the negotiating machinery. That is what we seek in a national joint council.
I have no doubt that the Minister's instructions are to resist our amendment. He will take his troops into the Lobby against us, but what does he think teachers will do if he imposes a settlement and rejects our amendment? How will teachers vent their frustrations democratically? How will they press their views? He is forcing them to continue that which he says he wishes to avoid—further disruption in the classroom. Without joint negotiating machinery with the support and involvement of employers and trade unions there is little alternative to industrial action—classroom action—whether that means working to rule or working to the strict limits of contracts. If the Secretary of State has any sense and can look into the

future, he will recognise that. But he intends to set up machinery which he knows is not and will not be accepted, which has no credibility and which does not democratically involve the employers and trade unions.
Many people are happy with the present arrangements, but the Secretary of State will leave them with no option. The right hon. Gentleman might try to gain political capital by saying, "It is disgraceful that teachers, in spite of it all, are taking industrial action." But how else are they to express their grievances? We do not have to agree with those grievances. I do not agree with members of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers on some issues, but they hold sincere beliefs which they believe to be important to their colleagues and people working in similar conditions. How does the Secretary of State expect them to express their views fairly and reasonably if he does not set up negotiating machinery which has their confidence, which involves them and which allows them their own representatives? Surely the Secretary of State understands that he is corralling those people into a situation that he would wish to avoid.
The other amendments deal with the composition of the national joint council. The Secretary of State will have read the document signed by the unions, under the auspices of ACAS, post-Nottingham on 21 November, so I need not weary him with the details of the national joint council, but the unions' agreement foresees representatives of the six unions and of the local authority associations involved.
The aspect that is not quite so straightforward is the role of the Secretary of State. The Government provide 46·4 per cent. of the money, so it is proper for the Secretary of State to have a role and the document provides for discussions about that role. It does not lay down a template; it is only fair that the Secretary of State should discuss his role with the other partners.
The Secretary of State is not the only person responsible for education. He says, rather pompously, "I have a responsibility for education and I must fulfil it." But local education authorities have a responsibility that they also contracted at the ballot box, and teachers have a practical responsibility. Those three parties, along with parents and children, have a responsibility for making education work.
The Bill, and the rejection of the national joint council, will leave everything with the Secretary of State and his appointeees. The Secretary of State cannot say that he is the only person in the country responsible for education. Education is a partnership. Even when the Government force the Bill through and take all the powers, the delivery of education will still have to be a partnership. The best way to make the partnership work and to deliver effective education is to have negotiating machinery that involves all the parties on terms that they accept. The Secretary of State knows that his proposals do not provide for that. If he is a fair man, he will recognise that a national joint council, which is a practical and reasonable suggestion, is an idea that he would be well advised to adopt.
There is no great political principle involved in the establishment of a national joint council. It is not a terrible political trick to sidetrack the Secretary of State or to strip him of his responsibilities and involvement. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the local authorities, which provide 54·6 of the cost of teachers' salaries, also have a responsibility and he must join them in a partnership if he is to deliver something effective.
If we were a Standing Committee and had time for representations to be made to the Secretary of State our uncontentious amendments might be accepted. The Secretary of State would lose nothing by accepting the amendment and he would gain credibility and send a message to employers and teachers that they had a role alongside him in negotiations and that that role should be incorporated in negotiating machinery that everybody accepted. If the right hon. Gentleman genuinely wants peace he will seek a partnership and compromise along those lines. If he rejects that, parents and teachers will have to conclude that he does not seriously want peace.

6 am

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who moved the amendment, said that these matters relate to the second set of amendments that we debated earlier with regard to ACAS. They cover much the same ground as the first set of amendments on the negotiating position after the Bill is passed. The hon. Gentleman put a strong case for a joint negotiating council. One must query the criteria and conditions for the establishment of such a negotiating council. One must work from a pragmatic base.
In the previous debate on FE, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) put forward the argument that the Government would go along with a joint negotiating council for FE, but not for teachers. Why not? To find the answer to that question, one has to examine what a joint negotiating council for teachers and FE has resulted in. The record of success of the joint negotiating council, which is broadly what Burnham is, has not—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: No.

Mr. Baker: I shall pursue my argument in my own way. All hon. Members agree that conditions should be negotiated together with pay. Looking back upon the Bill of 1965, it now seems quite barmy that they were separated. If hon. Members consider what has happened when there has been, in effect, a joint working party over the course of the past year, outside the umbrella of the concordat, they will see what sort of record of success there has been. One cannot say that it has been a successful record. In Coventry, an agreement was initialled by five unions. They were asked to develop it, work it out and work it up. Straight away, I was asked to sign up for it. As the process of working it up and talking together proceeded, the unions started to break away from it. A meeting was called in Nottingham, which then went to London and resulted in the document of 21 November, which four unions signed. Although the hon. Gentleman calls it an agreement, he knows that it is supported by only two unions.

Mr. Radice: Which represented the majority of the teachers.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman made that point, but in the middle of November, he said, "It is supported by the majority of the unions." In fact, the NUT advertisement that appeared in the press two days ago erroneously referred to it in similar terms. I am sure that the editors got the copy and got it in place before they knew what happened last Friday and Saturday. I do not accuse the publishers of being deliberately misleading. They were overtaken by events. The history of this sorry saga is that one is overtaken by events. Now, two unions remain fully

signed up. They are holding ballots. One does not know what the result of those ballots will be. The unions are deeply divided.
This Monday an advertisement appeared in The Guardian. It had been put in by that part of the NUT that is against the NUT's policy. Basically, it is the Inner London Teachers Association, but I think that it has wider support than that. That group is campaigning for a "Vote No" in the NUT ballot.

Mr. Radice: That is democracy.

Mr. Baker: Of course it is. I do not deny that. It shows that the NUT, which has campaigned strongly for this agreement and has probably dominated the discussions leading to it, has a group within it which goes to press to say:
If the deal were accepted it would worsen the working conditions of every teacher and cause 1,000s to leave altogether.
The group says that the deal involves "illusory gains", "jam tomorrow", "Baker's dozen", and all the rest of it.

Mr. Flannery: I think I told the right hon. Gentleman that I was at the NUT conference. It should be made clear that at that conference the NUT voted on the employers' offer. That had nothing to do with the Government. The Government should not take comfort from what the Secretary of State is saying, because there is not the slightest difference between the two sides in their opposition to the Government. They differ on the employers' offer, but they are totally united in their opposition to the Government.

Mr. Baker: That position has yet to be made clear. We know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous supporter of the NUT. At that conference the motion only just squeaked through, with 55 per cent., and a ballot is now being held.
The profession is divided on this matter. Individual unions are divided. If Labour Members say that the joint negotiating council, or joint working party—call it what one will—is what they want, they must be able to show that it works effectively. For the past year, there has been something very close to the joint negotiating council—

Mr. Fisher: Come on.

Mr. Baker: With respect, the machinery has been working closely since 1985 on the basis of the joint negotiating council. It has not led to resolution because not only the unions but the employers are divided. The Labour employers have been fairly united and consistent, led by Councillor Pearman. The alliance expressed misgivings at certain stages, but I think that in the end it voted for the 21 November agreement, so it is party to an agreement that is falling about its ears. The Conservatives walked out, walked back again and then walked out again. The Conservative employers announced that they would not support that agreement.

Mr. Spearing: There may have been difficulties in the past few months. The right hon. Gentleman said that the unions are divided, but we are talking about the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for a national joint council. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the professional associations and the employers are on record as being against the proposal that is at the heart of amendment No.


30? The right hon. Gentleman has to prove that they are, not that they are divided about his proposals or the present structure. That is not what the amendment proposes.

Mr. Baker: I was coming to that. Obviously, I shall refer to the words in the so-called agreement of 21 November. It states:
The NJC will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee.
I accept that they want some form of joint negotiating council. Four unions have signed up for it. The 21 November document goes on to say—this is the difficult part for the unions—
The parties will seek discussions with the Secretary of State on his role in the new machinery.
So far, the unions have not sought to do that. Those that have come to see me have not raised the issue of future negotiation. I dare say that they will. One group is coming to see me on Friday and another next week, and I am sure that the matter will come up. The nub of representation on the joint negotiating council is how it should be determined. There has been a High Court action. Those who defend Burnham, and who would defend this type of operation, would be able to say that it did work in a period when one union ruled the roost. The NUT did rule the roost and thereby imposed a degree of unity on the unions by sheer numbers.

Mr. Flannery: Sheer numbers is democracy.

Mr. Baker: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that all those other unions that felt that they were being dragged along in the negotiating process may not have felt the great advantages of that form of democracy. That is one reason why, during the past 15 or 20 years—the hon. Gentleman wants to call them professional associations and they certainly started as that—the dominance of one union on Burnham exacerbated the intense union rivalries which have embittered the entire teaching profession, to the extent that a great membership battle is going on. The unions jealously guard their numbers and watch carefully whether the membership of the AMMA or the NAS/UWT is increasing, or the membership of the NUT is decreasing. The reduction in NUT membership reduced its representation on the Burnham committees. Therefore, the way in which it would be represented on a joint negotiating council is an important matter that is left rather vague.
Paragraph 7.4 deals with the role of the Secretary of State. Again, that is vaguely expressed. There is a recognition that the Secretary of State should have a role. Should there be weighted voting, as in Burnham, or should he have an explicit veto, as there was with the concordat? Of course, the concordat was torn up.
There are substantial practical problems that have not been resolved—

Mr. Radice: The Secretary of State is saying that the difficulties in the teaching profession and in education are so immense that what might be a solution anywhere else—presumably he would support that solution—just will not work. The Secretary of State said that he was responsible for education. That is the great message. Of course, he is. What is he doing to ensure that those

problems are overcome? He cannot pretend that taking all the powers to himself will produce a more united teaching profession—

Mr. Fisher: United against him.

Mr. Radice: —except against him, and a more united local authority grouping. Or does he suggest that this interim solution will be in place for ever?

Mr. Baker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about what I am doing, may I say that the first thing I am doing is introducing the Bill in an attempt to resolve a difficult problem. It is recognised as a difficult problem, with no easy answer. Had there been a easy answer, it would have been resolved much earlier; not in the past two or three years, but some time in the 1970s.
We had a statutory Burnham negotiating committee with the concordat. That gave the Government control over the total cost of pay settlements and a strong influence over the pay structure—not a determinant, but a strong influence. The committee dealt with pay alone, and it was not a successful arrangement. More recently, we have had the Burnham committee without the concordat, as a result of the unilateral decision by the local authority associations. The Government were patient and waited to see how that might work. My predecessor was patient—

Mr. Radice: Answer the question.

Mr. Baker: I am just coming to the answer. My predecessor was patient, and that was unsuccessful. A joint working party, was set up by the unions and the associations represented on Burnham to consider both pay and conditions of service. The Government were present, but with limited voting power. The working party was not successful.
Then we had the reference to ACAS earlier this year, and negotiations were carried out with its help and guidance. There has been some useful progress, but we still do not have sufficient agreement of total cost, including pay structure, teachers' duties and conditions of service.

Mr. Radice: When will the Minister answer the question?

Mr. Baker: I am about to turn over a page. When I reach the next page, the hon. Gentleman will hear all the answers there. Nor do we yet have the proposals for future negotiating arrangements. That is the background against which the Bill has been prepared. It provides for the establishment of an interim advisory committee. I emphasise that it is interim.
All the interests concerned will be able to offer that committee views—the unions, the local authority employers and other interested bodies. The Secretary of State will be required to consult the local authorities and the teachers' unions before giving effect to recommendations from the committee, whether or not he judges it necessary to give effect to the recommendations in modified form. That is clause 3(1), to which we shall come later.
6.15 am
In all this there is nothing to prevent the unions and the local authorities working together and offering agreed evidence to the advisory committee or to the Secretary of State. If they wish, they can do that. They can negotiate together and present a united front.
Finally, the Secretary of State will have to submit his conclusions to Parliament before giving effect to them. Nothing could be more democratic than that.

Mr. Radice: The Secretary of State has cleverly ducked my question, as he pretty well does all the time. How does he think that that will bring the union side together with the employers side, except, perhaps, in hostility to himself? What does he think will happen then? If it is an interim arrangement, he is obliged to tell us what will happen after 1990.

Mr. Baker: I have been asked by the hon. Gentleman several times now whether I agree with collective bargaining. If collective bargaining is effective and all the parties are involved, one should obviously try to find a way to achieve that.

Mr. Fisher: What is meant by "effective"?

Mr. Baker: For management to resolve a dispute in less than five years would be effective.
The review of the structure of the salary and profession started in 1981 and it went on until 1984–85.

Mr. Fisher: rose—

Mr. Baker: I am still trying to reply to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), but I shall do the hon. Gentleman first.

Mr. Fisher: I shall be most grateful if the Secretary of State will do me first. Perhaps he will answer my question, which he has not yet heard, first. He said that there was nothing to prevent the unions and teachers negotiating together and then presenting joint evidence to the advisory committee, but he has just told the Committee how extremely difficult it has been for them to negotiate with formal machinery. How does he expect them to negotiate satisfactorily in order to form joint evidence with no machinery whatever?

Mr. Baker: They can do that themselves. After all, that is what we have just approved for further education. If they want to discuss together, they can, and not only regarding the presentation of evidence, but in the subsequent phase where I have to consult both the unions and the local education authorities. One knows perfectly well that that will be a form of intense discussion and consultation, because there will be proposals from the interim advisory committee and there will no doubt also be proposals from the unions and possibly from local authority employers. The resolution of that will have to be determined by the House. How much more democratic can we get? Hon. Members cannot dismiss the House of Commons and say that the present procedure, as Labour Members well know, involves no parliamentary process for the implementation of the findings of the Burnham committee. I issue orders and that is that. We are providing for a parliamentary process similar to that.
The hon. Member for Durham, North asked about the interim position. It may well be that one will be able to move towards a form of joint negotiations after a period of an interim committee, but that will have to await the outturn of events. The other view, as some people have already advocated to me, is that there should be a fully fledged and independent review body. That view has been put to me by some members of the profession.
It is sensible for the Government to proceed with the measure and to establish the interim advisory committee

as a means of trying to resolve what has been an exceptionally difficult process of negotiating a settlement between six unions which have different views and profoundly different interests. Successive Governments, Labour as well as Conservative, have never seen fit, or have never been able, to relax their control over the cost of the overall settlement. That is quite understandable. It is not just a question of the 46·4 per cent. There is also a commitment of resources through public expenditure allocations to the local authorities. I do not believe that a joint council would work at this stage. That is why we have suggested an interim advisory committee, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Spearing: The Committee's deliberations have reached a very interesting stage. One of the advantages of our parliamentary procedure is that the strength of Parliament can be displayed, even though it is 6.20 am. I appreciated the Secretary of State's apparently reasonable and philosophical tone. Gone are the great polemics of substitute Second Reading speeches in the glare of "Today in Parliament." We are now much closer to reality. For the first time in months I have a twinge of sympathy for the Secretary of State—

Dr. Godman: No, do not have any sympathy for him.

Mr. Spearing: I am dissuaded by my hon. Friend. However, the Secretary of State was pitched into this position and found himself floundering among the extraordinary machinery that he has inherited. Therefore, he decided to bring down his sword of Damocles by introducing this Bill.
We have just had a fairly wide-ranging review of how to find a way out of this mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) suggested a joint council. He has skilfully inserted into a not very good Bill the means of converting the present machinery into something that is entirely new that does not require the Secretary of State to decide and then to obtain parliamentary approval.
I draw the attention of the Secretary of State and the Committee to the fact that this problem is not new. Far from there being fundamentally new problems, the old ones are still with us. However, instead of dealing with them constructively, as the amendment does, the Secretary of State has skilfully exacerbated the difficulties and let the milk boil over before deciding to turn off the gas.
I should like the Secretary of State to answer the charge of the Association of County Councils. I do not think that the Government believe that the Association of County Councils is irresponsible. The Government may hold certain views about some teachers' associations and some local authorities. We do not share the Government's views, but their attitude has been made plain. However, I should not have thought that it extended to the Association of County Councils.
In its communication the Association of County Councils says that it has argued for many years for the repeal of the 1965 Act which it believes has
inhibited proper negotiations of teachers' salaries".
The Secretary of State has opposed changes that would have allowed effective negotiations to take place.
What is the Secretary of State's answer to the very serious charges that have been made by an important employers' association? Apart from the different employees' associations that came into existence for understandable, functional and historic reasons, as I


showed in my contribution of about 12 hours ago, there are different associations of employers, each of which has its own particular and rightful place in the machinery.
The ACC goes on to say:
The Government has hitherto consistently refused to agree to the employers' request for legislation to improve the negotiating arrangements.
The employers know a little more about education than the Secretary of State and the inhabitants of Elizabeth house. I do not blame them for that; it is in the nature of the national education machine. Here employers are using their proper role and responsibly saying that the Government have refused to agree to improvements in the legislative machinery. The Government have a responsibility to tell us—I do not think they have told us—why they have not responded at least to the employers' request in the past few months and years. There is an answer to that question, which I shall not pursue now. It does not show the Government in a good light. Perhaps it will be more appropriate to pursue it later.
I refer to the efficacy of the joint council that we are now discussing. The real parameters of the problem have not been changed. The forces in the education world that are moving in that area have not changed over the years. They have been present in some form since 1944, and were certainly present in 1965 when the present legislation was introduced. It is to the 1965 Act that I want to turn the attention of the Government. I ask for their reply to the points that I shall make.
It was on 20 November 1964 that Mr. Michael Stewart introduced the present legislation, which the Secretary of State has claimed is outdated and will not work. It was introduced on a Friday. The debate started at about 11 am and finished at 3.15 pm. There was no vote. The 1965 legislation was agreed because, as was amply demonstrated during debate, the Bill was drafted by the then Conservative Government and Sir Edward Boyle, and introduced by Michael Stewart. The elements that are now facing us faced them. For the first time, the Minister introduced his own representatives en masse into the Burnham committee. He said, "I shall have 15 of the 26 representatives of the employers on the employers' panel." That was a big change, but it was reckoned to be fair by everybody concerned because, as we have heard today, the Minister, as an employer, claims rights of representation on the employers' panel. But the conditions of their presence and what they were there for were carefully laid down.
I should like to quote in full something that Mr. Michael Stewart said on that occasion because I believe that the Secretary of State—I am glad that he is still with us—has misused what Mr. Stewart was saying at that time. It relates to the importance and presence of the Secretary of State's representatives on that panel. Mr. Stewart said:
The Bill provides for the contingency that exceptional circumstances might justify the rejection of the arbitrators' recommendation. But to limit the use of this power and to safeguard against its abuse the Bill provides two separate safeguards. First, the decision to use it is vested not in the Secretary of State, but in Parliament"—
the Secretary of State referred to that—
and it requires the affirmative action and not merely the acquiescence of each House separately. Secondly, the criterion by

which Parliament must judge a proposal to reject the arbitrators' recommendations is whether national economic circumstances require it.
The effect of that is that the circumstances must be economic. They must not be purely educational in character.

In other words, when the present machinery was installed, both sides of the House said, "Parliament must have the last say. The Secretary of State can reject a long series of negotiations and arbitrators' proposals but, if he does, the last ditch refusal must be based not in educational matters, arguments about distribution in particular, but related to national economic circumstances." We now understand that the rejection, not of the arbitration result but the so-called ACAS agreement, is not connected with national economic circumstances. The Secretary of State has not claimed that. He has claimed that it is to do with his view of the needs of education at the time. He may feel justified in doing that. He has pressed it very hard.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: indicated assent.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad to have the Secretary of State's confirmation. In doing that, he breaks with the accord of 1965, which said that the long-stop device should be related only to national economic matters.
It was not only Mr. Stewart who said that. A leading member of the Government at that time was Mr. Christopher Chataway. Mr. Chataway, alas no longer with us, had long experience in education as a member and leader of the Inner London education authority.
During the course of the debate, Mr. Chataway said:
On the question of the overall total cost, the ultimate say rests with the Secretary of State. I was glad that he made the point today that there would not be any question of the Secretary of State's representatives coming along and issuing an ultimatum at the start of the talks. Clearly, that would be wrong. It would not be acceptable if the Secretary of State's representatives were to come to the Committee and say, 'it is to be £50 million. We have decided on the figure, and now what we are going to negotiate about is the way in which it is going to be distributed.' When my right hon. and learned Friend met the teachers' associations and the local authorities in September he made it clear that he, too, was not suggesting any such system."—[Official Report, 20 November 1964; Vol. 702, c. 794–803.]
When he referred to his right hon. and learned Friend, he was, of course, talking about Mr. Quintin Hogg.
In 1964 when the Bill, which was to become the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965, began its passage, neither side of the House saw the power that the Secretary of State is now, in effect, using as one that related to negotiation and internal distribution.
When I say that we are still on the same psychological parameters today as then, the Secretary of State will now know what I mean. He will say that conditions have changed, that things have been fouled up and that the associations, as I prefer to call them, have fallen out among themselves, and so on. I have to remind him that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, because in 1964 the representation of the Secretary of State on Burnham was justified morally and in common sense by the fact that it was claimed, without any dispute, that 60 per cent. of the salary was paid by the Exchequer.
What has happened since then? Because of the change in the rate support grant arrangements and the attitude of the Government to local government as a whole, that 60 per cent. has been much reduced. A figure of about 44 per


cent. or, at most, 50 per cent., no doubt varying from county to county and LEA to LEA, comes to mind. Certainly conditions have changed but the arithmetic about the representation on Burnham has not. I wonder whether there would have been a difference under Burnham if the 15 representatives had been reduced pro rata with the input from central Government. That might be an argument, but I am not making it. I am saying that the real psychological parameters in the whole bag of tricks are much as they were in 1965 and that the structure then created would have worked if those involved had wished it to do so.
That brings me back to the fundamental point that education in national negotiations, like education in the classroom, depends upon the will of those in the ring to reach an agreement. Any one of the three elements can at any time play a mischievous part and prevent such agreement from being reached. As my earlier quotation showed, even the Association of County Councils believes that the Secretary of State has played a part in preventing agreement. At any rate, the association wants a change in the machinery and we have yet to hear why that has not been accepted.
I shall prove my point by a quotation from Mr. Quintin Hogg when he was Minister of State. He is now Lord Chancellor, and thus a member of the Cabinet which no doubt approved this Bill, reluctantly or otherwise, with or without discussion. I can certainly imagine some of the dramatis personae in that argument. We do not even know which side the Secretary of State was on. I wonder what the Lord Chancellor said in Cabinet on this occasion. In November 1964, he said:
The first point that I would seek to make is that this debate illustrates something which I have said on many occasions, and that is both the folly and, in the end, the corrupting nature of any attempt to bring the education service too strongly in the path of politics. I have always tried to pursue, in relation to education, as detached a view as I could and I think that this is a proper approach to the matter."—[Official Report, 20 November 1964; Vol. 702, c. 833.]
So say many of us here.
It is the path of politcs, to quote a useful phrase which may even come to the aid of the Secretary of State when he is protecting education, which has brought us to this sorry state. If the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), had not pressed what we saw as the path of politics far too strongly in negotiations in the past few years, the existing machinery could and would have worked. Pressing the path of politics too strongly has caused the present foul-up. All would have been well had not the path of politcs intruded into machinery that was never intended to cope with it. We have Lord Hailsham's authority for that.
Amendment No. 30, so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. (Mr. Fisher), offers the Secretary of State another path. The Bill, curiously enough, follows much the same structure as its two predecessors. Its centrepiece is Parliament's final approval, by order, as it has been since 1963, but the content of the order should result from the national joint council and not the old style Burnham committee. There is a very big difference. The Secretary of State did less than justice to the proposal when he referred to the joint council being composed in a rather vague way. I made a dissenting

noise at that point because he was not giving sufficient weight to the proposals in amendment 49, which is also in this group.
Amendment No. 49 says:
The National Joint Council will be composed of representatives of the local education authorities in England and Wales and of the six unions presently represented on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee. The balance of representatives on each side will be determined with the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
The Bill proposes no automatic arithmetical proportionate membership such as we have now. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter. The amendment proposes that the balance of representatives on the national joint council should be established by some form of mutual conciliation. It is up to the Secretary of State to table further amendments if he wants to decide how the balance will be struck, but with the help of ACAS. What I imagine will be a relatively small body should reflect a balance of interests, including the panel of employers' representatives.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman is highlighting the difficulty of the problem. He speaks of the assistance of ACAS, but suppose the unions do not agree with its advice and there is no agreement about how many representatives there should be of each union. ACAS has tried to find an agreement since the beginning of the year, but there has been none among the unions. What leads the hon. Gentleman to suppose that, when trying to establish the balance of power—a critical issue—the unions are likely to agree with what ACAS recommends? The same is true for the employers. The hon. Gentleman's optimism is overcoming experience.

Mr. Spearing: I suggest that it is the Secretary of State's pessimism—and especially that of his predecessor—which prevented the existing machinery from working. I do not pretend that the answer is easy. That is why I welcome the philosophical and thorough approach of the amendments. Perhaps both sides are a little closer on an analysis of the problem, although they have not reached accord on the optimum solution.

Dr. Godman: I readily accept that there have been formidable problems with the Burnham committee. The problem of the balance of power has been experienced by many national joint industrial councils and in many cases it has been resolved to the qualified satisfaction of those involved.

Mr. Spearing: That is a helpful intervention. We have here a problem which often arises in the House. It is the least worst solution. People often complain about our procedures and say that they are arcane, difficult and illogical, and ask why we go through the night debating a vital matter. We all know that we often come up with the least worst solution.
The Secretary of State has fairly and rightly drawn attention to some of the difficulties. He may be right, but if his chosen path is not right, we should stick with the machinery that we have got and not act like the sorcerer's apprentice.
The existing machinery is by no means perfect, and most hon. Members want to change it. It may be that there is only one alternative to the draconian power that the


Secretary of State is trying to take or the pro rata of Burnham. The proposal of the joint council might work better than the present machinery.
6.45 am
In two years' time, the Secretary of State will have to produce another Bill. I suspect that many of his hon. Friends support him because they can say that while the Bill is outrageous in what it proposes, it cuts the Gordian knot and gets the schools back to work and gives them time to think up some better form. Perhaps there is not one. Perhaps the best way to go about it is along lines similar to those laid down in the 1965 Act, perhaps amended slightly, but with an understanding from each of the three partners inside their own groupings, which means inside the Cabinet and inside the Government, that they do not mess up and go down the path of politics referred to by the Lord Chancellor. That would be self-restraint from the Government, as there would have to be from the employees, that they would not play too much among themselves. There may be a feeling of constraint among the employers, the county councils and other authorities that they must not play too great a part in this difficult tripod of our education structure. In the end, that may be the only way in which it can be done. If that is shown to be true, it will prove that in this sector one cannot use the usual rules of industrial arbitration, or the usual rules of statute.
Everything starts on atmosphere. Everything begins and ends on the invisible threads of personal relationships, which occur inside a classroom, a school, the local education authority, the Cabinet and the minds and hearts of those involved in education. The Secretary of State should consider this proposal and say why it cannot work. Instead of looking at alternatives to the present structure, he has chosen the sword. In the end, the sword will not flourish and cannot succeed in this educational quagmire.

Dr. Godman: I speak in support of amendment Nos. 30 and 49. My support for the amendments stems from my belief that it is almost always the case that employers possess much more power than employee associations, or trade unions. That holds true as much for those employed in the education system as for those in manufacturing industry. I also believe that a formal structure of collective bargaining is an essential element in the development of good industrial relations. I would have thought that all of us here are concerned with the development of good, co-operative relations between employers and trade unionists.
By power, I mean where an individual or group has the ability or means to coerce others into complying with instructions, even though such compliance may conflict with the interest of those in the subordinate position in the relationship. One has to acknowledge that within the teaching unions as with others, there is a distribution of power among those trade unionists. A national joint industrial council can play a powerful role in the establishment and maintenance of good industrial relations, and there is a great deal of evidence from other industries to support this assertion. One thinks of the work carried out for many years by the national joint industrial council for the fishing industry. There are national councils responsible for collective bargaining about terms and conditions of employment in a range of industries extending from defence to private industries such as

shipbuilding and engineering. I have mentioned the council that existed for a time for the fishing industry and one thinks also of the council for those employed in the maritime auxiliary services.
Many personnel managers and senior managers involved in collective bargaining prefer to deal with organised labour within a framework of national joint industrial councils. I think that the Donovan committee in its report published, if I remember rightly, in 1968 pointed to the formal and informal systems of collective bargaining.

Mr. Fatchett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Godman: I shall in a moment. In cases where there is a clash between the formal and informal systems, one often sees a worsening of industrial relations. For example, if the informal system predominates, it is almost inevitable that industrial relations will be much less co-operative and much more unprincipled.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend says personnel managers have a current preference for the bargaining structure about which he speaks. He will note, if he adds a historical perspective to his analysis of the development of collective bargaining, that it was Government through the initial Whitley reports who advocated structures such as the national joint councils. It was the espousal by private industry of the Whitley report that led to the creation of NJICs in many industries. Therefore, there is a long history of public policy advocating the sort of machinery spelt out in this set of amendments.

Dr. Godman: I am conscious of the history of national joint industrial councils, but I had better not go down that road. The national joint industrial council for the fishing industry was introduced to an industry characterised by casual employment and with the worst group of employers in the history of modern British industrial relations. Nevertheless, that council imposed a system of order on the fragmented processes of collective bargaining in the deep-sea fishing industry. In talking about teachers and their employers we are talking about an entirely different system of collective bargaining. Nevertheless, the principle is the same.

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Whitley was the Speaker of the House of Commons and the analogy that I attempted to draw between atmosphere, decision, and the procedures in the House of Commons and the self-disciplines of national joint bargaining are not coincidental: they are fundamental. I think that my hon. Friend has helped the Committee a great deal in suggesting that the stage at which teachers' bargaining has arrived may be, paradoxically, at an earlier stage in the cycle of evolution of national joint bargaining than that which has been reached in some other industries. It may be also that the Secretary of State should learn from that.

Dr. Godman: It seems that teachers—

Mr. Fatchett: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Godman: I ask my hon. Friend to let me get into my stride first.
It seems that teachers and their representatives have to make difficult choices and will have to accept that, but that is the essence of collective bargaining. Both sides must accept that which they would rather dismiss. The hawkish lot on the Government Benches seem to think that a


national joint council would go beyond democratic compromise, but it is in the nature of national joint councils that agreements are hammered out. It is my experience that by and large they are honoured.

Mr. Fatchett: I realise that my hon. Friend has moved on in the development of his argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said that a Mr. Whitley was Speaker of the House of Commons, it may be useful, as a Yorkshireman, to remind my hon. Friend that Mr. Whitley was a Yorkshireman and represented a Yorkshire constituency. The links with the argument that he is advancing are traditional and personal.

Dr. Godman: I think that the links may be somewhat tenuous. I am a Yorkshireman who for a long time has been domiciled in Scotland with, happily again, a Scottish wife and family.
I would wish to leave Mr. Speaker Whitley behind, though he has an honourable place in history. I believe that it is essential to have a structure for collective bargaining in education, and that with a formal structure it is possible to encourage some local autonomy. A national joint council composed of employers' representatives and teachers, representatives as outlined in amendment No. 49 is the way ahead if our objective is good industrial relations.
The Secretary of State observed in an intervention that some teachers' unions are unwilling to accept what he might call the democratic share of the representation on such a council. It seems that this is an area where ACAS has an important role to play. I spoke about ACAS earlier, and I believe that it could resolve, for example, initial conflicts of view and objectives at once. I believe genuinely that such conflicts would be resolved with the assistance of industrial relations specialists.
These are useful amendments on the composition of a national joint council. It could be that for one or two years the chairman of the NJC, as envisaged in the amendments, would be a local authority councillor, with a teacher, or teacher's representative, taking on the role of deputy chairman. Once their periods of office expired, these roles would be reversed so that for one or two years the teacher would become the chairman. That is an established practice with many national joint industrial councils, and I can think of no reason why the procedure of alternating chairmen should not be established for a national council dealing with teachers.
7 am
As with other national joint industrial councils, tough negotiations would be conducted by both sides at the monthly or quarterly meetings of the council, but agreements would have to be reached and, as elsewhere, both sides would have to make concessions. That is at the heart of industrial relations, and that is what we mean by collective bargaining—that, as is customary in collective bargaining elsewhere, concessions are made to achieve agreements that are binding on both sides.
It would be possible to arrive at a sensible composition of teacher and employer representatives on such a council. I support the amendments because of the need for a formal collective bargaining structure, such as that determined to a large extent by such a council. The Secretary of State will reject them, but national joint councils have an important

part to play in many of our industries, and such a council could play a valuable role in collective bargaining between teachers and their employers.

Mr. Flannery: In his reply to the amendments, which I support, the Minister lingered lovingly over splits among the teachers. Of course there are splits. No one is more aware of that than we are. There have always been splits, although these have recently been accentuated simply because they always occur in struggles.
Unlike the Minister, we do not rejoice about this, because it creates terrible problems. It was significant that in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) the Minister again entered that arena. He just cannot stay clear of it. There is something about this subject that gives the Minister pleasure, and he cannot help exulting about it. It is all grist to his mill of anti-democracy.
When the Minister talked about the difference in the composition of the JNC, he laboured mightily to try to prove that it was not possible for the local education authorities and the six unions, under guidance from ACAS, to arrive at a reasonably acceptable democratic conclusion. There is always difficulty with such matters, but the Minister is determined to highlight the difficulties in order to justify the destruction of any democratic negotiation.
Local education authorities are elected bodies which have had a long struggle to achieve democracy. They are the best that we can manage. All hon. Members know about the long struggle to establish trade unions. The Combination Acts stopped the trade unions in the early years. We still rejoice in the Tolpuddle martyrs and celebrate them every year. Democracy is a long and continuing process.
On Monday I mentioned Winston Churchill, who said words to the effect that democracy is awkward and unwieldy but the best thing we have. Indeed it is. Anything that violates democracy will ultimately be found out. There is no doubt about that. In the long term the antidemocratic people will be defeated. In the meantime they will cause misery, and unnecessary problems will be heaped upon us. They will cause trouble for the Minister, for us, the children and for everyone concerned.
I am sure that all hon. Members have a copy of the ILEA brief, section 3 of which states:
The Bill replaces, therefore, the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee set up by the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. Although the Bill does not explicitly remove the rights of collective bargaining … there will, for practical purposes, be no forum for this to occur. Any agreement could be overridden by the Secretary of State. It is quite clear that he will immediately use the powers in the Bill to impose a settlement to the current dispute without reference to the Advisory Committee and rely on the Advisory Committee operating under directions issued by him in future years.
That is the nub and essence of the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister seems to be lacking faith in his own judgment, because although he has not yet appointed the advisory committee he has already ridden over a decision which it might have had the opportunity to take. Is that not an unpalatable prospect for anyone looking for a job on his advisory committee?

Mr. Flannery: I agree, but even deeper than that is that, after long struggles, we now live in a democracy. Dictatorship comes about because the old rulers can no


longer rule in the old way and because the people are no longer willing to be ruled in the old way. Leaders take over and dictatorship is established.
We live in a democracy. For a Minister or Government to take short cuts with democracy, in a democracy, after a long struggle is disgraceful. That is being done to save what amounts to petty cash. In this case we are talking about saving £80 million. That is even more serious when there is no obvious regret by those who are engaging in anti-democratic methods. Instead, for some curious reason, the Minister seems to take joy in what he is doing.
Our task is to foil the Secretary of State in every possible way. We could give hostages to fortune because if the right hon. Gentleman treats these amendments with the contempt with which he has treated everything else, he will be conniving in allowing an area of democracy to slide away. That would strengthen the hand of those who would take further short cuts and go on to invade other areas. It would become a wide-ranging attack on the unions and democracy in education.
The Secretary of State was asked earlier what the advisory committee will do when he has used the elected dictatorship which conciously violates democracy. Even though there is a counting of heads. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be difficult to get a range of democratic bodies to agree on setting up a democratic committee to continue democracy and negotiation. We all know that there would be difficulties, but we should try to overcome them.
When the Secretary of State hand-picks a group of people, including the chairman and deputy chairman of the advisory committee, that might be easy, but they will merely carry out his orders. The most that they can do is to reflect some ideas that they might glean from talking to elected groups. That will have little or no impact on getting the money that is necessary to educate our children, or in securing peace in our schools and all the things that Labour Members want, but which Tory Members, most of whom went to public school and do not understand the state education system, only say that they want. In fact, they want peace through a dictatorial attack on the education system and a deprivation of money.
The attitude of the Minister, as he lies there with his sleeping pack behind him, is one of utter contempt. The right hon. Gentleman is not sleeping. He is showing us that he is not even interested in what we are saying. Although we shall not win the vote, we shall win the argument and our case will become reality, because the difficulties will be so tremendous that something will happen and make what happened to Chirac look like a tea party. [Interruption.] I must object to the interruptions of hon. Members beyond the Bar. They are not officially in the Chamber and if they want to come in they should do so.

Mr. Allen McKay: I am pleased that we have woken up some Conservative Members. It is nice to know that we are speaking to people who are listening—even though only three Conservative Members are left after our long and laborious night.

Mr. Fatchett: It has been extremely enjoyable.

Mr. McKay: And informative, too. We have reached the nitty gritty of our amendments, and the Secretary of State's attitude reminds me of something that happened

when I went on a parliamentary visit to the United States to study democracy in local government. We visited one place where we saw a cross between a quiz and a galactic war. It was in Dallas. Only Texans would build things like that, anyway. The people in the auditorium could have five minutes to speak on the subject under discussion. The chairman said to me, "This is democracy at work. All the people here can have a say. They will please themselves what they do." That is what the Secretary of State will do. He will become judge and jury. He will pay them and guide them.
7.15 am
Subsection (2) states:
The Secretary of State shall appoint an Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions to examine and report to him on such matters relating to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers in England and Wales …
The Secretary of State may give directions to the Committee with respect to matters referred to them".
Following a direction from the person who set it up, the committee will consider wages and conditions of service
and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are subject".
The Secretary of State will not only set up the committee and give it directions, but will tell it how much it can spend. He will take away any semblance of free collective bargaining, of which the Government are supposed to be the champions.
I am bothered about the education of children. That is what the argument is about. My constituents are fed up to their teeth with children constantly being sent home from school when their parents are at work. More serious is the interruption to children's education. The Secretary of State's proposals will worsen the position. I hope that I will be proved wrong and the Secretary of State will be proved right. However, in correcting the problem, he will also create another wrong.
In the years that I worked as an industrial relations officer, I found that if impositions do work, they worked for only a short time. The problem was caused by the Government, who have cut local government and education finances. The Secretary of State knows that had extra money been provided when he became Secretary of State we would not be debating this matter until this hour, because there would have been no problem. The denial of the money caused the problem in the first place. By using his powers, the Secretary of State will cause problems for many years to come. With the return of a Labour Government, we shall get rid of them anyway. If the Prime Minister is right about the timing of the election, we shall debate this matter again and again.
If the Secretary of State is heavy handed and acts in a dictatorial manner, he will destroy an element of democracy which we cannot afford to destroy. He will destroy democracy at the gress roots of the education system. His proposals will not get the best out of teachers. He proposes to pay them according to their expertise and ability. I do not know how he will find that expertise and ability. It smacks of looking for blue-eyed boys and favourites. That will lower teachers' morale even more.
We want the Secretary of State to consider our suggestions seriously. We are not saying that the present system is right and should not be altered, but the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will make it even worse. We are trying to put in his mind ideas from which he could build a more regulated system. Our proposals will satisfy the


teachers and the trade unions, because they have already had a hand in them, and they should satisfy the Government because they will be part of that new system. There is no reason why our proposals should not work.
The Secretary of State said that he was in an impossible position and had to do something about it. He put across that idea very well. The problem with industrial relations is that one is always in an impossible position. The art of getting out of it is to do one's best and not to take the easiest and cheapest means. Indeed, sometimes one has to buy one's way out of it. It is ironic that we have a Government who created the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. They are going against their convictions in opposing the national joint council. I ask the Secretary of State to look seriously and favourably on our amendments and to give credence to the idea that they are better than his proposals and will work better than his will. He should therefore accept our amendments.

Mr. Corbyn: A great deal has been said on this subject, and I do not want to detain the Committee too long. The Secretary of State believes that he can somehow resolve a long-running and fundamental dispute simply by rejecting our proposal to establish a national joint council that could determine wages and conditions through a spirit of collective bargaining. He favours a body appointed by him, comprising his favourities who will do what he wants when he wants. How does that solve the problem? There will be no one with any respect for that body because people will know that, in reality, it is the Secretary of State. What will be its decisions? Will anyone agree with them? When the right hon. Gentleman's bidding has not been successful, what will happen? We shall go straight back to where we have been for the past year—into another teachers' dispute and another problem in the schools—because the right hon. Gentleman will not face up to the fact that the reasons for the dispute are that teachers have been consistently underpaid and that the Government have cut education spending.
Anyone who looks at the history of industrial relations will realise that there has been a constant struggle for the right of trade unions to undertake proper collective bargaining in a free spirit. The Government are keen on free collective bargaining for trade union rights, provided that it is in Poland. They are not awfully keen on the same for this country. In the past seven years, they have systematically attacked the rights of trade unions to organise and have systematically destroyed whatever national minimum standards applied through the wages council system. In this legislation, the Government are trying to set up something that is much worse than the rather inadequate bodies about which many of us have complained.
The body will be created from the Secretary of State's prejudices, and one dreads to think of the sort of people who will serve on it. Where will they come from? Will they be aspiring Tory Members of Parliament or former Tory Members of Parliament? Will they be people from the public schools, who will try to worsen the conditions of the maintained sector? Where will these creeps come from? Are there enough creeps in the country to fill the Secretary of State's advisory committee? Or will it be the ultimate trip-up by the Secretary of State, who is noted for his smooth appearance and approach? Will he finally trip over his own Brylcreem? I believe that he will be in a real mess over this.
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that it cannot work. He knows perfectly well that he cannot solve the teachers' dispute other than by starving them to end the dispute or by ordering them back to work. This is a very dangerous step, because he is setting up an advisory body, which is dictated to by the Minister, and which comes to the decisions that the Minister wants. Will he then seek legal backing to impose its decisions on disputes? The advisory body will be no more independent than was the Spanish parliament under General Franco, or any other dictator around the world. That is the way we are moving in clause 1 of this nasty Bill.
If the Secretary of State bothered to talk to teachers and parents, he would discover that, although many parents are angry at the number of times their children have been sent home and very angry about the loss of education for their children, and there is a great deal of chaos in the schools, the parents are not queueing up to attack the teachers. He will discover that some teachers, parents and children are getting together to attack him, because they know that the root cause of the problem is him and his Government, not the teachers. If he was a teacher, he would either have left the profession a long time ago and sought more lucrative employment, such as being a Tory Member of Parliament—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Lucrative?

Mr. Corbyn: It is extremely lucrative when one has several jobs. But what can the people who love teaching and who want good education and standards do? Are they supposed to continue existing on starvation wages, or will they leave the profession? Those who wish to continue have stayed, suffered and fought for education and for the campaigns mounted by their unions.
At the end of this debate, the Secretary of State will be very tired. He will probably be extremely bored, listening to Labour Members saying almost the same things to him, but it will not solve any problem. By Monday or Tuesday, or January or February, or whenever he succeeds in forcing through this nasty Bill, the same problem will land straight back on his doorstep and he will have to do something about it. He has solved nothing tonight and he will solve nothing tomorrow unless he faces the real issue, which is the conditions under which teachers operate, rather than attacking them for attempting to organise and obtain proper free collective bargaining.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To conclude the debate, I ask the Secretary of State especially whether he has given any attention to amendment No. 119. That deals with a problem in his new procedure which he may have overlooked. Under the existing Burnham arrangements, if there is a local dispute about the interpretation of the agreement, the matter could be referred to the joint secretaries for interpretation. I gather that, at present, there is a dispute about people who have obtained degrees in the United States. Until 1982, anyone who had a good degree from the United States received the extra payments on the scale rates. In 1983, the Government decided that they would no longer automatically recognise for good scale rates degrees from the United States. Some believed that the intention was that individual degrees from the United States would be considered; others thought that no degrees from the United States should qualify for extra


payments. As I understand it, the Burnham committee is at the moment being asked to interpret that particular problem. I can give many more examples.
Who will now be responsible for interpreting either the Burnham proposals which are carried forward by the legislation or the proposals which would come from an advisory committee?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned amendment No. 119. That should not be necessary. An order placed before the House under clause 3 can cover both remuneration and conditions of employment. Once the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament it will carry the force of law. It will then be for local authorities to implement the provisions in the order. It will be a matter for each local education authority to decide what local consultative arrangement it has for the implementation of the contents of the order.

Mr. Bennett: I hope that the Minister will give more thought to that. I, for my sins, sometimes have to sit on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which looks at the orders which come up. They are extremely complex and sometimes one considers that a particular clause had to be written in, and sometimes several clauses, for that one example which may come up perhaps once every five years. There is danger about that approach of having to write everything into regulation in case one example arises. The attraction of the Burnham system, as I understand it, is that although it has laid down pretty detailed guidelines the exceptional cases can be referred to a body for interpretation. That has some attractions.
No doubt we can return to that matter later. However, I suggest to the Minister that he may be encumbering himself and the local authorities with some exceptionally detailed regulations. There is some evidence, particularly in areas such as social security, where amending regulations have to come out extremely rapidly. I suggest that the Minister gives the matter a little more thought.
If the Minister's objection on the general question of national joint councils is that one which is not really a national joint council has been acting like one, the present complicated procedure and the ACAS discussions do not augur well for one in education.
However, I suggest that the main problem in education is that at ground level the Secretary of State has used his influence to try to set one teacher union against another. It has been particularly noticeable that since the discussions arrived at at Coventry are not included, he seems to have put all those efforts into trying to set one union off against another. I suggest that instead of doing that he would be better occupied trying to demonstrate that a national joint council could work.
If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the possibilities of voting procedures within a national joint council, not just a simple majority but perhaps a two-thirds majority to obtain agreement, I am sure that he could design a procedure that would encourage the teaching unions to work together, along with the local authorities, recognising the legitimate special interests that some of the union groups represent.
The more that the Secretary of State encourages divisions in negotiations the more he encourages divisions

and bitterness in the schools. If we want to allow our schools to return to giving a first-class service to our children, we want to get all teachers to work together in schools, and for there not to be the bitterness that does exist in some schools where people feel that perhaps over school meal regulations or some other regulation, one group of the profession has been causing particular problems for another area.
I am sure that a national joint council would be the way forward and I regret that the Minister has set his face against the legislation and is insisting on introducing a temporary measure when either a national joint council or something along those lines will have to be introduced if we are to have a return to genuine collective bargaining. If the Government will not do that, I hope that we shall be able to repeal this legislation and ensure that we can return to joint collective bargaining in the near future.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 137.

Division No. 29]
[7.35 am


AYES


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Michie, William


Clay, Robert
Park, George


Cohen, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Redmond, Martin


Fatchett, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Fisher, Mark
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stott, Roger


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Don Dixon and


Maxton, John
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Crouch, David


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dover, Den


Baldry, Tony
Dunn, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Benyon, William
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, John
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gale, Roger


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hind, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Holt, Richard


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Corrie, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Couchman, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)






Hunter, Andrew
Neale, Gerrard


Jessel, Toby
Neubert, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Newton, Tony


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Nicholls, Patrick


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Norris, Steven


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Onslow, Cranley


Knowles, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lang, Ian
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Latham, Michael
Pawsey, James


Lawler, Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Powell, William (Corby)


Lilley, Peter
Powley, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Price, Sir David


Lord, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Raffan, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McCrindle, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Maclean, David John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Malins, Humfrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)



Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Moate, Roger
Mr. David Lightbown.


Moynihan, Hon C.

Question accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 33.

Division No. 30]
[7.45 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Corrie, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Arnold, Tom
Crouch, David


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Tony


Benyon, William
Evennett, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, John
Favell, Anthony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bruinvels, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Churchill, W. S.
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Colvin, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Coombs, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, John
Hind, Kenneth


Cormack, Patrick
Hirst, Michael





Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Holt, Richard
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Howard, Michael
Moate, Roger


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Neale, Gerrard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Newton, Tony


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunter, Andrew
Norris, Steven


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Ottaway, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Pawsey, James


Knowles, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Lang, Ian
Powley, John


Latham, Michael
Price, Sir David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Raffan, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lightbown, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lyell, Nicholas
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McCrindle, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spencer, Derek


Maclean, David John
Stanbrook, Ivor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Malone, Gerald
Thurnham, Peter


Maples, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Marlow, Antony
Waddington, David


Mather, Carol
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maude, Hon Francis



Merchant, Piers
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Mr. Michael Portillo.




NOES


Barron, Kevin
Michie, William


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Park, George


Clay, Robert
Parry, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Redmond, Martin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dobson, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Fatchett, Derek
Rowlands, Ted


Fisher, Mark
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman
Stott, Roger


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter



Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Mr. Don Dixon and


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Allen McKay.


Maxton, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL TEACHERS' PAY AND CONDITIONS

Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 16, after 'appoint', insert
'after consultation with teachers' unions and associations, and the local education authorities'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments. No. 34, in page 1, line 16, after 'appoint', insert


'on the nomination (in respect in each case of a third of the membership of the Committee) of the trades unions represented before the passage of the Act on the Burnham Primary and Secondary Committee; and of the local education authorities'.
No. 213, in schedule 1, page 5, line 5 leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.
No. 214, in page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) The Advisory Committee shall consist of not fewer than fifteen members, of whom seven shall be appointed on the nomination of associations representing local education authorities and seven on the nomination of registered trade unions representing school teachers.'.
No. 215, in page 5, line 6, leave out 'nine' and insert 'twenty'.
No. 216, in page 5, line 6, at end insert
'and who shall include members appointed on the nomination of the relevant local education authority associations and members appointed on the nomination of the teachers' unions and associations.'.

Mr. Fatchett: We have discussed with you, Mr. Armstrong, the possibility of taking with this group amendment No. 35, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, after 'an', insert 'independent'. We are doing that so that the Committee can bring together two points about the advisory committee. We have taken on board the fact that progress has not been as quick as we had expected, and we are trying to facilitate matters. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) was earlier bemoaning the fact that we were making so little progress. We are now making more rapid progress, and he is not here to see it happen, although the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) is here. If the Government do not yield to the strength of our arguments, we shall seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 33. Given the way in which the Labour vote has increased so dramatically in the last two Divisions, the Government may feel that, with the troops coming back in, it might be time to yield to our persuasive argument. We would also like to have a division on amendment No. 35.
8 am
The amendments deal with the advisory committee. My hon. Friends have already referred to the advisory committee, because it will replace the free collective bargaining for teachers. Our amendments deal with the balance of the advisory committee, consultation, nomination and other aspects of appointment. It may be useful for the Committee if I made it clear that while we seek to amend and improve the committee, it would not be the intention of any forthcoming Labour Government to have any truck with it, and when we come to repeal the legislation, the committee will go.
One of our major criticisms of the committee is that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) on Second Reading—that it is toothless—and this is shown in a whole series of aspects.
Schedule 1 deals with the basis of appointment to the committee. Appointment will be at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. The Bill sets out various reasons for removing people from the committee—for example, if a person has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors. That seems a reasonable course. A second reason is if he is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, and, thirdly, if a person is absent for two

or more consecutive meetings of the committee, except for reasons approved by the committee. That may also seem reasonable, although one or two hon. Members might find it a dangerous rule if it were applied to the House. Finally, the Secretary of State takes to himself the power to dismiss from the committee a person
who is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State otherwise unable or unfit to perform his duties as member.
In other words, the Secretary of State determines whether a person is unable or unfit to serve on the committee. We know from the record of the Government only one way that the powers will be used. The Government and the Secretary of State will act as they have acted over the past few years, when the Secretary of State was in another office. They will appoint to the advisory committee only those people who are prepared to go along with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Frank Cook: Noddies.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend says, "Noddies." That may well be an attack on an important children's toy and book, and is probably an unreasonable comment by my hon. Friend at this time of the morning. Children enjoy Noddy books and would be unhappy to see Noddy acquainted with the people we might find on the advisory committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will take an opportunity to withdraw his comment.
We will see what we have seen from the Government in other contexts. I ask my hon. Friends to think about all the appointments that the Government have made to chair district health authorities and the membership of those authorities. They appoint people who will support their policies and do not seek a balance or representation to reflect different views. They will simply search for people who will nod through the Government's policy. The Secretary of State, who is not here at the moment, has a record for doing that.
Some of us had the dubious pleasure of serving with the Secretary of State during the passage of the bill to abolish the GLC and the Metropolitan councils. We said then that the people he would appoint to chair the residuary bodies would be totally dependent on the government and would follow the Government's wishes. Anybody who lives and works in a metropolitan council area or in the GLC area will know how true those comments proved to be. The Government appointed to chair and run the residuary bodies exactly the sort of people that we expect them to appoint to the advisory committee—placemen for the Secretary of State.
In advancing interesting arguments during the earlier part of the debate, some of my hon. Friends spoke about the power of ACAS and the role of ballots in industrial disputes. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who asked the Minister of State to have a ballot on the Secretary of State's proposals. That brings to mind again the parallel with the metropolitan counties and GLC, because during the passage of the Bill to abolish them we tabled an amendment that the Secretary of State should have a ballot about abolition. We said that if he believed abolition would be popular he should subject it to the test of popular opinion. The Secretary of State refused to accept any such amendment. When it comes to a test of popular opinion, whether of the electors in the metropolitan areas or in the GLC area or of teachers, the Secretary of State runs away.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the struggle against the abolition proposals, four GLC by-elections were held because Labour members resigned so that the electors could have a voice? The Conservative party refused to contest those elections.

Mr. Fatchett: I welcome that point from my hon. Friend because it shows that the Conservative party has a certain disregard for ballots. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggests that the Conservatives may even refuse to stand at the next general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that this debate had been running for less than a day and we had already gained five points in the opinion polls. If that process continues, the Conservatives might take the action that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggests. If that happens, there might be a series of place men sitting on the Government Benches.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Conservatives may already have decided to withdraw from the election without making it public. I do not think the conservatives have a candidate to stand against me at the next general election. Perhaps they are quite happy with the present representation.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We had better return to the amendment.

Mr. Fatchett: That is an interesting psychological observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but I refuse to comment on it.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does my hon. Friend find the Government's attitude to ballots strange? During the miners' strike there were Nuremberg-type chants from the Government Benches for a ballot. The cry was "Ballot, ballot, ballot" throughout the strike. Conservative Members were so concerned about democracy then. Is it not strange that now they are in conflict with the teachers they do not want a ballot? What is my hon. Friend's opinion of this selective democracy that is operated by the Conservative party and the Government?

Mr. Fatchett: We have expressed strong opinions about that throughout the night. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Government have less than an even-handed approach to democracy. My hon. Friend may have entered the Chamber a little late, but I have no doubt that he will come to the same conclusion as my hon. Friends and me. The Government move quickly in whichever way they find convenient, and the question of principle rarely arises in that process.
I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State is to reply to the debate. He has been present for about 15 hours and he has not been able to utter a word. That must be a great disappointment to him and to his many admirers on the Government and Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to address the Committee, and I suspect that my colleagues will want to make comments on the advisory committee. I have no doubt that the Minister will have the opportunity to reply to the debate.
The Minister will note that the amendments are an attempt to meet the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has made. We are trying to introduce an element of indirect democracy. Some of the amendments allow direct nomination by the individual

trade union bodies, or in some instances the local authorities. This is not the same as a ballot of all teachers. We are trying to find common ground with the Government. We know that they are frightened of total ballots, but we thought that a system of indirect democracy meant that they would be prepared to accept the sort of amendments that we are tabling. The amendments would reflect the balance that exists within the current machinery and among the teachers' unions in membership, and it would involve an element of democracy and accountability.
If our amendments were accepted, the committee would have a degree of accountability. Those who served on the committee would report back to individual local authority associations or to individual trade union associations. We do not accept the principle of the Bill. Surely the hon. Gentleman must welcome the constructive way in which we are trying to improve the status and standing of the advisory committee. The amendments would work to that extent.
I shall comment briefly on amendment No. 35 and the group of amendments which are to be taken with it for debate. The amendments aim to extend both the powers and the independence of the advisory committee. It has been said time and again throughout the debate that the advisory committee is basically a tool or device of the Secretary of State. It has no independence and no real ability to gain legitimacy in the eyes of teachers or in the eyes of local authorities and their associations. We are saying that the committee should become independent of the Secretary of State and have the right to report to Parliament directly. On a number of occasions during the course of the debate the Secretary of State has suggested that he welcomes the greater involvement of Parliament. Our search for that middle ground has led to us wishing to give Parliament a greater role in the proceedings.
We are saying that if the amendments are accepted, there will be a process of direct reporting to Parliament from an independent body. In those circumstances we may be able to find other analogies in collective bargaining and industrial relations that will be similar to the machinery that we are suggesting. There will be no other example of workers who have moved from free collective bargaining to the independent advisory committee that is implied by the amendments. We put them forward very much as second best to collective bargaining. If the Minister is prepared to support these amendments, we shall at least get an advisory committee which, although independent of the Secretary of State, will have some powers and the ability to report to Parliament.
8.15 am
These amendments seek to remove from the advisory committee the total control and domination of the Secretary of State. If they are accepted, we shall have a better representation of membership and greater independence and powers. The Minister should recognise that if this committee is to do its job it needs these powers and this independence. That is why I ask the Committee to support the amendments.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has made some telling points, several of which probably need emphasising.
The Bill refers to the advisory committee which will report on the remuneration and conditions of service of those in the teaching profession. On the surface that seems


to be sensible—even acceptable—but while accepting the need to seek advice, we must ask what the committee will do in practice.
Clause 2(2) enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the committee in respect of financial and other constraints. How will he do so, how large will the financial and other constraints be, and what discretion, if any, will the committee have? If it has no independence, it will be a sorry business if, on the one hand, we set up an advisory body—with all the notions of consultation that that invokes—while on the other its powers and potential usefulness are so circumscribed as to render it powerless. That appears to be the direction in which it could go.
The word "direct" has sinister connotations; and given the recent history of industrial relations in education, one becomes worried. On looking further into the matter—as I have done—those worries become stronger.
Schedule 1 sets out in skeletal form the constitution and procedures of the proposed new body. First, the Secretary of State has, and will no doubt use, the power to appoint the committee. How will it be composed? That is a good question, but so far we have had very little illumination.
I suspect that it will be composed not of people committed to the education service or its salary structure and so on, but of people who will do the bidding of the Secretary of State. I predict that we shall not even get people with expertise and experience in industrial relations, local government or other equally appropriate disciplines. They will probably be people who owe some kind of debt of gratitude to the Secretary of State—yes men who will do the right hon. Gentleman's bidding. People might be appointed because they are politically acceptable. That is a bit worrying because someone who is politically acceptable to this Government is often unacceptable to the education movement and outside.
The Government might produce a list of people who are acceptable, but I fear that they will not. The danger in putting the appointments in the gift of the Secretary of State, past, present or future—in the short term at least—is that the power may be used to make political appointments.
If politically acceptable people are appointed and they do not do their job quite as the Government want, the Secretary of State has the right to remove anyone who in his opinion is
unfit to perform his duties".
What does "unfit" mean and who will decide who is "unfit"? Potentially, those words could encompass anyone who is simply unprepared to toe the Government line. What would happen if a politically acceptable appointee felt a rush of blood to the head and decided to be honourable? He would be removed as unfit. Is such a reserve power consistent with the apparent aim of conducting these matters in a balanced and sober way?
The proposal will widen the Government's ability to further abuse the education system. The Bill does not ensure the proper resolution of the central problems about which we are concerned. It does nothing to bring order and it inflames rather than settles issues at this time.

Mr. Dunn: It might help if I say a few words now and then listen to other contributions. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), as usual, was kind and

courteous in his comments about me. I have waited a long time for this opportunity to speak. I shall savour the opportunity since I have no idea what lies ahead.
Today was the first time that I have heard the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and I was worried about what he said about the appointments by the Secretary of State to the advisory committee. Because of his knowledge, the hon. Gentleman will know that successive Secretaries of State in Governments of both parties have made appointments to outside bodies. The University Grants Committee is, perhaps, the best example, but more recently appointments to the Committee for the Accreditation of Teacher Education were made by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). Neither those appointments nor others by previous Secretaries of State, were seen to be politically motivated. The appointees had strong views connected with industry, the trade unions or the theatre—which is not unknown to us. I should like examples of the type of abuse described by Opposition Members.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about district health authorities?

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Dunn: In a moment. I want to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Because I am not qualified to judge outside the area for which I am responsible, I deliberately spoke about appointments to bodies in education. There may be some comments that could be made from time to time in a snide way about people who serve on local or area health authorities. In education there are no examples that I am aware of—there may be some known to other hon. Members—where there has been a political appointment to bring about the results predicted by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North.

Mr. Fatchett: Given the fact that the advisory committee will be so political and that its work will create much controversy, is it not reasonable to expect that people will look to bodies outside education for experience of appointments to Government bodies? In that context, the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is appropriate. We noted the Minister's reservation about some of those appointments. If the Minister has reservations, he will understand that many people recognise the political nature of those appointments and will ask, "If it happens in health, why shouldn't it happen over teachers' pay?".

Mr. Dunn: Because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will choose honourable men and women to serve on the advisory committee.
As we are talking about appointments to bodies that have to take difficult decisions, I should say that the UGC has made controversial decisions in recent years and CATE also has a difficult task in evaluating teacher training and education.
The Bill provides that responsibility for appointing members to the advisory committee shall rest with the Secretary of State. That is a matter of consent. The difficulty about accepting the amendments is that they are mischievous and perverse, because they would recreate something that we are trying to get rid of—a mark II Burnham committee.
Amendment No. 34 talks about membership being one third one third one third to particular interests. Amendments Nos. 213 and 215 seek to increase the minimum and maximum size of the committee. If we had a committee of 12 people it would be divided 4:4:4, but how would the Labour party decide which of the six unions and the other teacher interests, such as the Inner London Teachers Association, should take up the four seats? Would there be weighting according to membership, regional spread, responsibility spread and so on? The Opposition have not thought it out. With 4:4:4, so that not all six unions can be represented, we shall be back to the major Burnham committee problems when the NUT dominated the committee through sheer weight of numbers. There would be a tussle for seats.
People who were appointed to the committee to represent particular unions or teacher associations would constantly have to go back to their masters to decide what their policy was to be. The independence that the Opposition would like for the committee would not exist from the first minute of the first day.
Accountability is an important aspect of the debate. To whom would the ILTA be responsible if it were appointed to the committee.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Dunn: I promise that I shall give way in a moment. The matter of accountability is such that there may be nominations from employers, who might be Labour-dominated, and who then go back to their source, and there may be teacher unions, who would then go back to their source. The independence of the advisory committee, which genuinely is sought in the amendments, would not be brought about.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, quite frequently in arbitration cases, a neutral chairman is appointed and the employers nominate one person and the employees nominate another person? It would be easy for those three people to put forward someone who is independent and who they consider to be a fair-minded person. The Minister claimed that the Secretary of State was capable of doing that, so why can these groups not do it?

Mr. Dunn: This is not an arbitration concept. It is an advisory committee. The hon. Gentleman has been in politics for a fair while, as I have. He knows that a great deal is often done in an informal sense—in smoke-filled rooms, in bars or behind the Speaker's Chair—to achieve the same results. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is a man of the world. [Interruption.] I believe him to be a man of the world. I am sure that he must be. I should imagine that he knows precisely the nature and importance of informal exchanges as well as of formal exchanges. Constant toing and froing, from the advisory committee to the source of the nomination, will make the committee much more inflexible, much more dangerous and much less independent than the hon. Gentleman would like.
That is not the kind of advisory body that Conservative Members want. It is not, in our view, to be representative of particular vested interests. For the benefit of those who must already know, I repeat that we do not want any return to squabbling points of view and narrow sectarian

approaches. The committee must be composed of people who can look objectively at the problems of the teaching profession, without fear of recall, censure or penalty. That means attracting and appointing independent people of standing to the advisory committee.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Do not give way.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister is talking about independence, and he is taking orders. Does the Minister not accept that, under these procedures the Secretary of State has a right immediately to dismiss? He said that there shall be no recall, as there would be under a system of local government or local authority accountability, but there is a system of recall. It is in the Secretary of State's office, and it is called dismissal.

Mr. Dunn: The dismissal by any Secretary of State would be subject to judicial review. Would recall to the National Union of Teachers headquarters be subject to the same review? I doubt it.

Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend should be aware that the city of Leeds, which is temporarily under Labour control, has an abysmal record of recalling councillors who speak in opposition to the party line. The measures that my hon. Friend announced will be important. That fact should be well known to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds).

Mr. Dunn: Labour control of any place is a temporary phenomenon. The point that my hon. Friend made is well known, and I am sure that he will expose it in the city of Leeds with which he has connections.
Opposition Members will have to wait to see who is on the committee. We have not even begun to put together a list of names. It must be understood that the Secretary of State will look for people of standing, integrity and independence of mind. The committee will not be the Secretary of State's poodle. It will not even be a Welsh corgi. It will exercise independent judgment, conduct independent analysis and arrive at independent conclusions.
It is suggested that my right hon. Friend should not refer matters to the committee or give it directions, but that it should decide of its own motion what matters to examine, or should have matters referred to it by local education authorities and teachers unions, or should consider matters only after their referral has been the subject of consultation.
The committee will, in any event, have quite a task to undertake. It will need some indication of what matters to examine and what priority to give them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the holder of his office will be able to pick out issues of importance for the committee's attention. When he does so, I should be very surprised if others did not think that they were important. He will not make an unreasonable selection of issues. If all and sundry could refer matters to the committee, the committee would be swamped and would not be able to function. Of course, the Opposition would like that. It is right, of course, that references should come from one direction and that the committee should then take evidence on them from all interested parties.
Not so much in this debate but in earlier ones, there was an insistence that the results of the committee's work should be published. That insistence is unnecessary. I can


give, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, an unqualified assurance that the committee's reports will be published. My right hon. Friend will place them in the Library and there will be no undue delays in publication.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central on dismissal. The Opposition have tried, and failed, to make something of the provision in the schedule that the Secretary of State may remove a member from office if that member is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member. They imply that there is something political or sinister in that. As the Committee knows, that is entirely common form. It appears in the Employment and Training Act 1973 in relation to the Manpower Services Commission and in the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 in relation to the Health and Safety Commission. Of course, the Committee will know that the Secretary of State would need to have evidence on which he could properly base an opinion that the member was unable or unfit to perform his duties. If he made an unreasonable decision, it could be challenged by way of judicial review.

Mr. Rogers: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Do not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not been here all night.

Mr. Dunn: I am an independent Member and I have given way a number of times.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State told the hon. Gentleman not to give way.

Mr. Dunn: I am conscious of that. But I want to help the Committee to make progress. As light breaks over Westminster, we must make progress.
I think that I have demonstrated that, although I understand the thrust of the amendments, it is my intention to suggest to the Committee that they be rejected.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. In view of the rather silly remark by the Secretary of State when I tried to intervene, is it now to be a condition of participating in the debate that an hon. Member should have been here all night? I do not think that the Secretary of State has been here all night.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me.

Dr. Marek: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) if he chooses to intervene.
We have had a scandalous explanation of why we shall have an advisory body that will be dominated by the Secretary of State, will be accountable only to the Secretary of State, will be composed of placemen of the Secretary of State and will publish reports but not the reasons behind them. The Under-Secretary of State referred to other bodies, but he distanced himself somewhat from appointments in the Health Service. I shall be interested to read in the Official Report exactly what he said. He placed much emphasis on being able to appoint people from the Department of Education and Science who have integrity and who are capable of examining the

issues objectively and reporting on them. But can he do that? Even if he can do it, he must convince the House, the public and the teachers that he has done it. Unless it is done openly, his case will not be very convincing.
I refer the Minister to the parallels with the University Grants Committee. Recently, the UGC carried out an exercise and published a report, but we do not know how it rated the various university departments and cost centres. There are rumours that it conducted the research by examining research papers produced during the past five years. This is relevant to the advisory body which the Minister proposes to set up. No one knows how the UGC carried out its work, because its operations are not published.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the hon. Gentleman were to speak a little louder, he would wake up his colleagues who are asleep on the Labour Benches. He is casting a slur on the work of the University Grants Committee, which consulted widely before making its determinations.

Dr. Marek: The hon. Lady is wrong. I may cast such a slur in what I am about to say, but so far all that I have said is that although the UGC produced a report—it consulted, but only with selected people—it did not explain how it went about its work and why it made the decision that it did. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that. No one in the university system who is not a member of the UGC or one of the sub-committees knows exactly what went on in the UGC. Several academics in universities have been drawing comparisons between what should be cut a litle more and what should be cut a little less and the institutions from which the members of the UGC come. I do not suggest that there is more than a casual connection. However, it is for the UGC to prove that there is no causal connection between the institution from which a UGC member comes and the results for that institution. The matter is debated in unversity circles.
I suspect that the same thing will happen with this advisory body. Of course, it could be appointed from people who have integrity and can consider matters objectively, and no doubt its reports will be pulbished, but unless the reasoning and the papers behind the report are published, the public will be unable to judge the objectivity of any such reports. The Secretary of State has no intention of publishing all the papers. The Under-Secretary of State is shaking is head. Suspicion will, therefore, remain, and I am sorry to have heard such shallow reasoning by the Minister, who jumped up early before some of my hon. Friends could make their important contributions to the debate. I hope that the Minister will speak again in the debate.
ILO convention 151, article 8, states:
The settlement of disputes arising in connection with the determination of terms and conditions of employment shall be sought, as may be appropriate to national conditions, through negotiation between the parties or through independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved.
I quoted that convention earlier.
We have not heard a satisfactory reply from the Secretary of State. He dismissed it, although Britain is a signatory to the article. I wish to dwell on some of the words used in the article—"confidence" and "independent and impartial". Why should we accept from the Minister that the advisory committee will be independent and impartial? He says that it will be from his point of


view. However, it will be made of people whom he has appointed and to whom he will refer matters and then receive their report. Why should we see them as independent and impartial?
Secondly, the paragraph at the end of article 8 says:
to ensure the confidence of the parties involved.
It does not say "party"—the Minister—but "parties"—the other side of the argument, the LEAs and the professional teacher organisations representing the teachers.
8.45 am
I should like an explanation from the Minister of how the form of advisory committee that he is setting up fits in with article 8 and why he thinks that this advisory committee will establish or ensure the confidence of the parties involved. I cannot see that. It will ensure the confidence of one of the parties, the Minister—there is no doubt about that—but I do not think that the Minister will argue with me that the teacher organisations will have no confidence in the advisory committee.
Other hon. Members want to speak and I shall not delay the Committee further. I have made two serious points. We want to see more confidence and impartiality. I understand the arguments on the advisory committee. The hon. Gentleman does not want it to be another Burnham committee. I do not necessarily agree with him, but I take his point and I understand his arguments. However, that does not mean that he cannot move some way towards meeting the requirements of article 8 of convention 151, which the United Kingdom as ratified. He could also take some lessons from what has happened within the UGC and the way in which that information has been disseminated, because I am sure that there are lessons there. He should try to avoid the same sort of thing happening with the advisory committee.

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: The most worrying implication of the Bill, not just for the education sector, which is naturally of the utmost importance to the country's future, but for other areas where a similar power may be built in, is the totalitarian control afforded to the Secretary of State.
There was much talk by the Minister earlier in the week of "consultation", but that consultation may count for nothing if the Secretary of State can overrule every suggestion, proposal or amendment, even after discussion and recommendation by the proposed advisory committee.
The Secretary of State is effectively saying to the teachers, the unions and the LEAs, "Heads I win, tails you lose." The whole principle of collective bargaining is being abandoned. Not only are the local authorities, which, as employers pay the greater part of teachers' salaries, being deprived of their negotiating rights, but so are the teachers' representatives.
The unprecedented attack on negotiating rights may be the most iniquitous part of the Bill. Those rights have been in existence since 1919 and, if superseded by the proposals, could mean the disfranchisement of about 400,000 teachers.
The standing joint committee was founded in order to bring stability into industrial relations in education through a national partnership composed of LEAs, teachers and the state. I recognise that, 60-odd years later, the reform of Burnham is needed, but the proposals before us are for complete centralisation.
Amendment No. 34 says that the major bodies concerned should be represented—both the unions most closely involved with the members of the profession and the teaching scene in the classroom, and of the LEAs, which have local responsibility for and knowledge of the schools in their areas.
If one compares the procedures relating to pay and conditions in the nursing profession, for example, there is obviously a difference of approach. The nurses, rightly, have an independent review body to discuss their pay which is separate from negotiations carried out by the health authorities and the nursing unions with regard to their conditions of work. According to these proposals, teachers will have a non-independent review body which will be able to discuss only what the Secretary of State says it may discuss.
Many hon. Members have been connected in the past with the education service. My connections are more recent than theirs. I am well aware of the frustrations of former colleagues and of the low level to which morale in the profession has sunk. Abolishing national representation, thereby preventing teachers from communicating through well-established union channels, will not make for good industrial relations—rather the reverse. I do not believe, however, that teachers will allow themselves to be steamrollered in this fashion.
The Secretary of State is heading for disaster if he takes hold of the educational reins in the way that is outlined in the Bill and makes himself virtually a dictator in education. Given the rapidity with which the Bill is being pushed through Parliament, he may achieve his objective. The numerical superiority of those who sit on the Government Benches may, unfortunately, ensure this, but amendments may receive a different reception in another place.
The Secretary of State should also reflect upon the fact that a dictatorship can lead to unwelcome and sometimes unpleasant reactions. The practical consequences of his actions will echo adversely ' through the educational establishments of this land. I join other Opposition Members in condemning such a move in the educational sector as unprecedented, unwise and completely undemocratic.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I had intended to address my remarks to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but he has disappeared. He may come back, and if he does I hope that his junior Ministers will remind him of the remarks that I shall address particularly to him.
My intervention is relevant to the amendment. It is also relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields). She referred to the lack of morale in the teaching profession. I was a schoolmaster for a very long time. I was president of my association when we went on strike for one day to secure recognition for Burnham purposes. In those days the Conservative Government were swifter in detecting the feelings of those in the teaching profession than they are today. It is a pity that the Government do not recognise that their first priority should be to restore morale rather than to introduce the arrangements that are embodied in the Bill.
In January next the Secretary of State is to address the north of England education conference at Wentworth Woodhouse in my constituency. I wish to convey the apology that I have sent to those who invited me to attend


to the Secretary of State also. I have to attend a meeting elsewhere on the same day. It is important to refer to Wentworth, because something happened there about 100 years ago that is relevant to the Bill. It is right to tell the Committee about what happened then. In Wentworth there is a very good village school. It existed 120 years ago, and a maiden lady was the schoolmistress at that time. This was in the days when a reactionary 19th century Government applied the rule of payment by result.
When Her Majesty's inspector of schools arrived in Wentworth he decided that this lady was a very poor schoolmistress. His assessment of her teaching was "very wretched". The great house, Wentworth Woodhouse, which the Secretary of State is to visit shortly, is owned by the Earls Fitzwilliam. The Earl Fitzwilliam of the time took very seriously the patronage of his estate village. He was deeply concerned that Her Majesty's inspector of school's assessment of the lady was very poor. He came to the House of Lords, where he encountered the president of the board of education. He complained to him that Her Majesty's inspector of schools having had the audacity to give this lady a very bad assessment. Because of the way things were done in those days, shortly after Earl Fitzwilliam contacted the president of the board of education, Her Majesty's inspector of schools was asked to carry out a further inspection of this lady's achievements.
When the inspector arrived at Wentworth village school to review the case, he saw not merely the children of Wentworth, but the Earl Fitzwilliam, Countess Fitzwilliam, Lord Milton, their eldest son, who was usually a Member of Parliament—a Whig—and three or four assorted nobility. That was only a short time after the first assessment, but the strange thing was that the assessment that the inspector of schools made on the second visit showed a remarkable and astonishing improvement in the prowess and professional achievement of the teacher.
That story, which is relevant to the amendment—

Mr. Dunn: indicated assent.

Mr. Hardy: I am glad that the Minister is nodding his head in approval of that proposition.
That story illustrates several things. First, it illustrates that the Conservatives 120 years ago were much more responsive to the realities for people in the north of England in areas such as mine than they are now. Secondly, it illustrates that the Conservative party has changed dramatically from the principle of noblesse oblige, which led an important nobleman to become concerned about a humble schoolmistress. Thirdly, it illustrates that those who were in Parliament and knew their areas could affect decision making in a way that this Government do not like. It may illustrate that there was something wrong with the methods of assessing teachers in those days. It may even illustrate that something was wrong about preferment in the Church. I understand that shortly afterwards that inspector of schools was made a bishop. It may illustrate that the methods of assessment, the principles involved and the mechanics that applied in those days are essentially the principles and mechanics that will relate to the development of the supervision of

teachers' pay and conditions by the various bodies that will be associated with that process under the Government's proposals.
History turns circles. We are circling away from a system which, by its historic chemistry, had begun to develop fairly in the post-war period until this Government began to set the profession on its head. The Government should understand that the unsatisfactory aspects of 19th century educational management will be developed in the late 20th century. Before it is too late, I suggest to the Minister that the matter should be reappraised. The amendment should command attention.

Mr. Rogers: One of the problems that we face on Labour Benches is the fact that yet again we have come up against a Secretary of State and Ministers who refuse to accept reasoned argument on amendments that are designed to help. The Under-Secretary said that the amendments were mischievous and perverse and that they were Burnham mark II. Often, one of the reasons for developing a mark II of any product is that an improvement is required. That is why we have tabled the amendments.
The amendments are mischievous and perverse in one sense, in that when we tabled them we anticipated the Government's response. It is the response that they have given to every sensible suggestion that has been made. As Labour Members know, they are dug into blind dogmatic hatred, in many ways, of anybody who earns a wage or salary. Anybody who is on fees or commissions or who charges whatever he likes for whatever he performs is the good guy in the Conservative party book, but anyone who does an eight-hour day and is paid a wage or salary is the one to be screwed in the Conservative economy. So we expected that response to these reasonable amendments. We in the Opposition do not see what is wrong in any way with employees being involved in or consulted about their pay conditions of work and so on. We consider that to be normal, rational and proper.
At the end of all this, the teachers will end up being treated differently from every other profession in the country. The status of the teacher will be downgraded as a result of being subjected to the conditions of the Bill. No longer will the post of a teacher in the community be looked upon as an honourable profession, to be ranked alongside doctors, lawyers, accountants and architects. They will be seen as someone who is simply employed at the rates of pay and the conditions of work laid down by the Secretary of State.
9 am
The Secretary of State is absent, as I suppose he has been on many occasions during the night, because he looked very sleek this morning, but perhaps I can ask the junior Ministers some questions that I hope will be answered in the reply to this debate. My first, question, which I ask as a Welshman is, how many Welsh people will be on the body as of right? It is part of the arrogance of the Department of Education and Science on this matter that it has not even considered that issue and the Under-Secretary of State did not mention Wales in anything that he said. Of course, this measure applies not only to England but to Wales. What representation will Wales have on the body? Is the Minister going to allow the peculiar problems that relate to Wales and Welsh education to be taken cognisance of in the advice that is received? I know that it is daft for me to ask for


representation from Wales because we know that when the advice and reports are provided the Minister will ignore them anyway. However, we should put a clear marker down at this stage and I hope that the Minister replies he will say what input the Principality will have on the advisory committee.
When the Minister replies I hope that he will also be able to answer a point that was partly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). Will the papers and documents of the advisory committee be available for perusal by Parliament or is it to be another secret body to be kept under wraps with the only thing coming out at the end of the day being the Minister's decision? I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us on that. Will the report of the advisory body on any issue that has been referred to it by the Secretary of State be published?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Yes.

Mr. Rogers: I am glad that the Secretary of State has said that, because it has relieved us of one of our great fears.
Mention has been made—I shall not labour this because contributions should be brief at this stage—of the fact that the Secretary of State will be quite unilateral in his powers of appointment.
I greatly fear the way in which appointments have taken place in area health authorities in Wales since the Government took office. With the appointment of the Secretary of State for Wales we saw a clearing out of everybody who sat on those bodies who did not conform to the Secretary of State's potential views. We had ridiculous circumstances where people of great integrity, seniority and with great knowledge of the Health Service were dismissed and people were brought in who had no real knowledge of the Health Service and no real contact with it but happened to be friends or, in one instance, the solicitor, of the Secretary of State for Wales. I am not saying that that man was not a person of integrity, honour, fairness and intelligence but he did not have any background in that area and it was obviously a personal appointment of the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will not go down that road in making his appointments.
One problem with this—I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept our fears on this issue—is that if he is to have such wide and arbitrary powers he must accept that we will be suspicious of them. The present Secretary of State may appoint a fair and honest committee of people with integrity and he may heed its advice, but that does not mean that all future Secretaries of State will do so. The profession and everyone else must be concerned at such a small body being given such arbitrary powers and reporting only to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Barron: The debate is going so well that I hesitate to intervene, but I wish to point out the great weakness of clause 2. I refer to the absence of any indication, either in the clause or in the Minister's speech, as to whether the local authorities and the teachers' unions and associations will in any way be represented on the advisory committee. I hope that the Minister will tell us, preferably before we divide the Committee on this, whether there is any intention to consult the various bodies and, if so, how it will be done.
Amendment No. 33 is one of the most helpful amendments that I have ever seen. It does not lay down powers sought by the Secretary of State but asks him to consult the education authorities and the teachers' unions and associations before the appointments to the committee are made public. I cannot see anything wrong with that. The Secretary of State should also regard it as his duty to consult the major parties in relation to any agreement or advice suggested by the advisory committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) mentioned convention No. 151 of the International Labour Organisation. Article 8 refers to
independent and impartial machinery, such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration, established in such a manner as to ensure the confidence of the parties involved.
How can any of the parties have any confidence in the advisory committee when the Secretary of State and the Minister will not say whether they are prepared even to consult, let alone take note or do as they are bid by the interests involved. Amendment No. 33 is perfectly reasonable. It would go some way, at least, towards ensuring that there is some confidence in the decisions coming from the advisory committee. The Minister described it as mischievous and perverse. That is a disgraceful reaction to a helpful amendment. I am sure that it would be supported by all the organisations that seem to be excluded from consultation by the Secretary of State.
I see that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have their heads together. I hope that they will reconsider amendment No. 33 and accept that consultation has always been embedded in the machinery of public bodies and trade unions. We want the Government to help the negotiations rather than try to get rid of free collective bargaining negotiations, and thus fail to ensure that people get their rights and have confidence in what is being done by Whitehall.

Mr. Frank Dobson: I apologise for not being here to hear the dawn chorus, but I do not intend to delay the Committee long.
The Government seem to be proceeding with this Bill, as with many others, on the basis of the old schoolmasterish principle that if it answers back shut it up, if it still answers back suspend it, and if it still answers back expel it. That is not a democratic approach. We want a society in which people are encouraged to answer back and have their say and a legitimate influence on all of the bodies that affect them.
The Burnham committee, flawed as everybody realises that it is, provides for teachers and their employers to have a major say in what happens to their pay. The Bill is just a product of the Government's "rent-a-creep" approach to public bodies. Whenever they have the opportunity, they get rid of representative bodies and replace them with appointed ones. The appointees are scarcely worthwhile. They are not people of stature because people of stature will not come forward to be appointed as creatures of the Government.
General Jaruzelski would be happy with schedule 1 and the terms of appointment. It is a long time since we heard the cant of Conservative Members about free trade unions in Poland, but all their cant did not lead them to do anything about helping free trade unions in Britain.

Mr. John Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the Tories took office in 1979, they have


put three Bills through the House—the Employment Acts of 1980 and 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984—on the grounds that they are giving trade unions back to their members, whereas here they are taking trade unions away from their members? Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Dobson: That is the nub of the argument about the Bill. The Government are saying that we can have free trade unions, it is just that they will not have a say in anything to do with pay and conditions.
It is common knowledge that the Government, led by the Prime Minister, ask of every potential public appointment, "Is this person one of our sort?" The Ministers who make the assessments, however, have proved themselves utterly unfit for public office. They will ask whether Mr., Mrs. or Ms. X is one of their sort and will properly reflect their views if appointed to the advisory committee.
I challenge the Secretary of State to get up now and guarantee that he will make available in the Library all of the information that he, his Department and Tory Central Office has about any of the people that they consider for appointment to the advisory committee.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend might not be aware that the Minister said that he would appoint only honourable men. He did not mention honourable ladies.

Mr. Dunn: I did.

Mr. Rogers: In that case I withdraw my comment.

Mr. Dobson: My recollection tallied with that of my hon. Friend, but no doubt Hansard will show who is correct.

Mr. Caborn: We have seen this political vetting in many sectors since the Government have been in power, for example in the health authorities. A colleague of mine in Sheffield was the chair of one of the area health authorities for many years, but has now been removed because he would not comply with the privatisation diktats from Government. He has a wealth of knowledge about the industry and the services provided, but because he will not carry out Government dogma, he has been removed from his post. Could not such actions be repeated under the provisions of the Bill?

Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the health sector, there has been a tradition of making balanced appointments on the basis that people would reflect the public interest, and have a record of public service and so on. In this case, the Government are setting out to establish a body with the sole objective of ensuring that nobody with a track record of public service would dream of serving on the body.
It is an inherent tendency in anyone with power to appoint those who will agree with one, but some people manage to resist that. The Government have not, but they would also claim that they are getting a good quality of appointee, even among those who always agree with them. Therefore, it is worth while drawing attention to that part of schedule 1 that refers to those who have become bankrupt or made an arrangement with their creditors being dismissed from those bodies.
It is not long ago that one of the Government's appointees as chair of the south-west Surrey health authority, a Mr. Salmon, left that office because he became bankrupt. The Government had such faith in the financial and managerial skills of Mr. Salmon, that one of his previous appointments was to a group that was advising the Government on value for money in the National Health Service. He was one of the Prime Minister's sort, but he was so stupid as to go bankrupt because he bought a boatload of bananas that went rotten before he could get them to shore. Those are the sort of people that the Government are appointing, and we want to keep them out of our Health Service, and wish that they had never got into our education system.
There is a serious point to be made to those Tory Members who call themselves, and genuinely believe themselves to be, Conservatives. Many of them are not, by any definition. Those who regard themselves as Conservative take almost as a first principle, "He who rules best rules less." No one could accuse this Government on that fundamental Conservative belief. They are centralist and interfering, and they make change without any forethought. They get rid of institutions that have served for a long time, and substitute things that are almost bound to be cock-ups from the start. They do not give any value to our exisiting institutions or to the plural aspects of our country, to which most hon. Members and certainly Labour Members, would subscribe.
We subscribe to the view that there are and should be countervailing centres of power in our society, but Government Members utterly reject that proposition. That is why we reject the schedule and support the amendments. We accept that the amendments fall far short of producing a decent advisory committee because it is impossible by amendment to turn into something useful a measure which starts out profoundly flawed and incapable of performing the task it is supposed to perform. Tory Members and people wo regard themsleves as Conservatives should know that the Government are not Tories: they do not subscribe to any of the decent traditions of British Conservatism. That is why the Conservatives will be rejected at the next election.

Mr. Freud: This series of amendments looks at the opportunities for consultation. As I drove back here after my bath break between 5.30 and 8 o'clock, I listened—

Mr. Forth: Lucky you.

Mr. Freud: Lucky me, indeed. As I drove back I listened to BBC Radio 4 to hear about what was happening in the Committee. The announcer said that the Government were introducing a Bill for "imposed settlement." It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State, who prides himself not only on his use of English but on his correct use of taut English, should believe that such a thing as an imposed settlement exists. It is a contradiction in terms, and the only way it would have any relevance would be if the Secretary of State were to level with those people on whom he will try to impose a concordat. Neither the Bill nor the clause seeks a concordat.
I remind the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is absent, that the whole point of negotiation is that it provides a safety valve for people before they take more serious and damaging action. By removing that safety valve, the Secretary of State is jeopardising the well-being and continued education of our children.
Schedule 1 deals with the advisory committee. There is no intention of giving the teachers a fair deal. No attempt has been made to appoint to the committee anyone who will represent and speak up for the teachers or the employers.

Mr. Dunn: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Freud: I know because the committee will have no power. It cannot vote for its own chairman because he will be imposed on the committee.

Mr. Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Freud: Not at the moment. Allow me to finish my sentence.
This schedule shows contempt for the teachers and for the negotiating procedure and will impose on the teachers what they do not want.

Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman said there would be no one to speak up for the teachers or for the local education authorities. How does he know? We have not even begun to formulate precisely the interests that will be represented on the advisory committee.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is disgraceful.

Mr. Freud: The hon. Member for Newham, Northwest (Mr. Banks) is right. It is disgraceful. It is the job of the legislation to provide facilities for teachers and persuade them that the Bill will look after their interests. The schedule says that anyone who:
has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors, is incapacitated by physical or mental illness,
will be removed from the committee. Can the Minister tell us who will be the judge of mental illness? Many people accused his predecessor of being less than totally sane. Would that be a criterion for removing someone from the committee? The schedule also mentions anyone
who has been absent from two or more consecutive meetings of the Committee, otherwise than for a reason approved by the Committee".
Even if that is thought to instill a certain demand on attendance, there is then a catch-all phrase:
or who is in the opinion of the Secretary of State otherwise unable or unfit to perform his duties
I presume that
unfit to perform his duties
would mean unfit in the eyes of the Secretary of State to do what he would like him to do, which is to behave in the way in which the patsies who will be put on to the advisory committee will be expected—

Mr. Dunn: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I spoke a few moments ago. Will he confirm that he was not? If he was not, I direct him to read the report of my remarks in Hansard. I covered the precise point that he is making in my remarks a few moments ago.

Mr. Freud: If the Minister has said anything to disprove what I am accusing him of, those words should by rights be in the Bill, and more particularly in the schedule. A teacher will read the legislation and ask himself what it contains to protect him. He will want to know what machinery exists to enable teachers, through their unions and democratic negotiating procedure, to be able to bring their justifiable views to the Government's attention. He will not read a report in Hansard to ascertain what the Minister might or might not have said during an early-morning sitting.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not a fact that when a Bill is being considered in Committee it is incumbent upon Members, and certainly Ministers, to ensure that all the good intentions that the Minister of the day might have are set out in clauses? If there is to be a subsequent challenge of an Act in the courts, the judges will not be allowed to read Hansard to ascertain what the Minister was saying at the time and what his good intentions were. Ministers move from one Department to another as ministerial changes are made. Legislation must be precise, and in this instance it is not.

Mr. Dunn: The Bill is precise.

Mr. Freud: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is all very well for the Minister to say from a sedentary position that the Bill is precise, but that can be said only when everything is set out in the Bill, and that is not the position at present.
On Second Reading, I asked the Minister of State to tell me of any other group of employees who is as disfranchised by negotiating legislation as the teachers will be when the Bill becomes an Act. What other special cases are there? The police are better represented than the teachers will be, and the same can be said of nurses, firemen and water authority employees. As an education spokesman, I deeply resent 400,000 teachers being disadvantaged and disfranchised by being put into a special category of non-representation by this Bill.
I accept that the Secretary of State deserves power and I do not object to the renunciation of the 1965 Act, but I mind very much what is being put in its place. History will show that it is the wrong measure at the wrong time and that it has been introduced after insufficient consultation. Over the next hours, or days, we shall attempt to persuade the Government to accept that the Bill is capable of amendment to satisfy those who look to us to provide decent legislation for their negotiating system.

Mr. Evans: I wish briefly to express my contempt for the authors of the Bill. This is ne of the vilest measures ever to be put before the House of Commons. Those who have produced it are not democrats and should be ashamed of themselves. The Bill exposes the complete and utter hypocrisy of the Tory party and all its works.
I intervened in the debate a short while ago to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have produced three major Bills since 1979 directed to the affairs of the trade union movement. They were the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984. We were repeatedly told by Secretaries of State and Ministers for Employment that the Bills had one express purpose—to give trade unions back to trade unionists. The thrust and purpose of the Government's exercise was to democratise the trade union movement. I refer to part I of the Trade Union Act 1984. At the time, the Government insisted that it was aimed at ensuring that trade unionists had the right to elect their executive councils. This clause—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming towards the end of his preamble and will now address himself to the amendment, which relates to the membership of the advisory committee.

Mr. Evans: The preamble is necessary, Sir Paul. Clause 2 informs us
The Secretary of State shall appoint an Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions to examine and report to him on such matters relating to the remuneration and other conditions of employment of school teachers"—
in other words, to do the job that those employed in the teaching profession collectively join together to perform, and that is to form a trade union.
The Government have taken away the trade union from those employed in the teaching profession. They have taken away their executive council. They have removed from the executive council the functions that any trade union should perform — negotiating wages and conditions. The Government, who repeatedly force Bills through the House on the basis of giving trade unions back to their members, have produced a Bill that effectively removes trade unionism from the teaching profession.

Mr. Dunn: Rubbish.

Mr. Evans: The Minister says, "Rubbish." Will he tell the House precisely what the National Union of Teachers and other trade unions will do in future in relation to negotiating the pay and conditions of their members? I shall give way to the Minister if he can tell me how I am talking rubbish. The Minister blusters. He cannot answer the question. The clause is aimed at smashing the National Union of Teachers and other teachers' trade unions. Over 400,000 teachers will not forget that fact in the next general election. They will make sure that they, their families and the parents of their pupils will remember that the Tory party forced this evil Bill through the House. They will take their revenge on the Tory party at the next general election.

Mr. Fatchett: This has been a unique debate. We had to wait for nearly 16 hours to hear the first words from the Under-Secretary of State, and we had to wait virtually the same length of time to hear the initial contribution to the debate by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal party. The debate has confirmed many of our fears.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred briefly to ILO convention 151, article 8. He said that the Government's action would transgress that article. The Government's defence is a weak one, but I shall not comment on it legalistically. Their defence is that by simply allowing trade unions the right to make a case and to forward it to the Secretary of State they will satisfy ILO convention 151, article 8. If that is what the Government mean by participation and democracy, it shows what little respect they have for the views of other people and trade unions.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East made an important point that has come through in the debate generally. He talked about collective bargaining acting as a safety valve. We had a long discussion earlier this morning about the powers and role of ACAS. A number of my hon. Friends pointed out that collective bargaining operates as a safety valve and provides a mechanism whereby industrial conflict can be institutionalised and peace preserved, not just in our schools, but in many other industrial relations aspects. The Bill will take away that layer of institutionalised conflict and bring the teachers' unions much closer towards raw politics. When we return to this debate, as we will from time to

time, Ministers will be said to be responsible for politicising the teaching profession. I agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East on that point.
The Under-Secretary of State said with great relish that the amendments were "mischievous" and "perverse". I felt that he had waited some time to use those adjectives. It is churlish to call our measurs "mischievous" and "perverse" when we are trying to maintain a certain level of debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made some good points which suggest that many of our fears about the Secretary of State filling the advisory committee with his friends, who do his political work for him, are well founded. That is why we have taken such a strong line against the Bill and the advisory committee. The only point on which I disagreed with my hon. Friend was when he apologised for the fact that he had missed the dawn chorus this morning. He need not worry about that. There is a chance tomorrow and on other days to consider many other amendments, so why should he hide the talents that are clearly there to be used on other occasions?
If the Under-Secretary of State considers our amendments to be "mischievous" and "perverse", he should note that what is really mischievous and perverse about the Bill is that it will replace collective bargaining with an advisory committee comprised of place men appointed by the Secretary of State. That is why we shall seek a Division on amendment No. 35.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 93, Noes 216.

Division No. 31]
[9.33 am


AYES


Alton, David
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Ashdown, Paddy
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hoyle, Douglas


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
John, Brynmor


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Beith, A. J.
Lamond, James


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bermingham, Gerald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bruce, Malcolm
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buchan, Norman
McKelvey, William


Caborn, Richard
McTaggart, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marek, Dr John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clarke, Thomas
Martin, Michael


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Clelland, David Gordon
Michie, William


Coleman, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Craigen, J. M.
O'Brien, William


Dobson, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eadie, Alex
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Freud, Clement
Richardson, Ms Jo


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robertson, George


Hancock, Michael
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rowlands, Ted


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth






Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stott, Roger



Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tinn, James
Mr. Don Dixon and


Wainwright, R.
Mr. Ron Davies.


Wallace, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Gale, Roger


Aitken, Jonathan
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Alexander, Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Amess, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Ancram, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian


Ashby, David
Grant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Greenway, Harry


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Gregory, Conal


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Batiste, Spencer
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Benyon, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Blackburn, John
Harris, David


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hayward, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Henderson, Barry


Bright, Graham
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hicks, Robert


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hill, James


Browne, John
Hind, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Hirst, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Buck, Sir Antony
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holt, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Howard, Michael


Butcher, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Butterfill, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby


Clark, Hon A (Plym'th S'n)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Key, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom


Coombs, Simon
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cope, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Cormack, Patrick
Knowles, Michael


Corrie, John
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Critchley, Julian
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Dicks, Terry
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Lyell, Nicholas


Dunn, Robert
McCrindle, Robert


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Eggar, Tim
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Evennett, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McQuarrie, Albert


Favell, Anthony
Madel, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Major, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mather, Carol


Franks, Cecil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Freeman, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick





Mellor, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Merchant, Piers
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Shersby, Michael


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Silvester, Fred


Moate, Roger
Sims, Roger


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Spencer, Derek


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Squire, Robin


Neale, Gerrard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neubert, Michael
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Norris, Steven
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pawsey, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Powley, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Price, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Proctor, K. Harvey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raffan, Keith
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Waddington, David


Rathbone, Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Waller, Gary


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whitfield, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wood, Timothy


Roe, Mrs Marion
Woodcock, Michael


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rumbold, Mrs Angela



Sackville, Hon Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Michael Portillo and


Scott, Nicholas
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State shall inform the Committee of any financial or other constraints which he considers to be relevant to their consideration of the remuneration and other conditions of employment of teachers, and as to the time within which they are to submit their report.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 55, in page 1, line 23, leave out 'direction' and insert—
'such advice as he considers to be appropriate.'.

No. 59, in page 1, line 24, leave our from third 'to' to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
'the financial or other constraints and as to the conditions to which they shall have regard in discharging their functions under this Act.'.

No. 60, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'are' and insert 'may'.

No. 61, in page 2, line 1, leave out:
'and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are to be subject,'.

No. 62, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'or other'.

No. 63, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'constraints' and insert 'consideration'.

No. 64, in page 2, line 1, leave out:
'to which their recommendations are to be subject'
and insert—
'which they may take into accont in their recommendations.'.

No. 81, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—
'which shall include the need to maintain and improve the morale of school teachers'.

No. 82, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—


'which shall include the need to expand provision for teachers' remuneration and other improvements to conditions of service'.

No. 83, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—
'which shall include the achievement and maintenance of a salary structure for teachers which pays proper regard to the value of good classroom teaching.'.

No. 84, in page 2, line 2, after 'subject', insert—
 'which shall include the value of a properly-financed education service.'.

No. 87, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'() In any report to the Secretary of State the Committee shall state the considerations to which they have had regard in making their recommendations, together with any comments they may wish to make on the appropriateness of the relevant considerations, and as to any other considerations which would in their view be appropriate for them to have taken into account.'.

No. 88, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'() The Committee may after the making of a direction under sub-section (2) above publish any considerations which they may consider to be relevant in addition to those specified in the direction, and they may take these into account in making any recommendations to the Secretary of State as though they were specified in the direction.'.

No. 93, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'direction' and insert 'advice'.

It will also be convenient I understand to discuss the next group of amendments: No. 94, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'such' and insert 'all'.

No. 95, in page 2, line 6, after 'authorities', insert—
', organisations representing parents.'.

No. 96, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'such' and insert 'all'.

No. 97, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'as appear to them to be concerned'.

No. 98, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'any' and insert 'all'.

No. 99, in page 2, line 8, leave out from 'education' to 'and' in line 9 and insert 'authorities'.

No. 100, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'reasonable opportunity of submitting' and insert—
'period of at least four weeks to submit'.

No. 102, in page 2, line 11, at end insert—
'(4A) Such arrangements for submitting evidence and making representations shall include reasonable opportunity for the parties in subsection (4) (a) to discuss and negotiate between them such issues as they require so to consider jointly, whether in the presence of the Committee or otherwise.'.

Mr. Freud: It is very good to have a morning audience that was significantly missing during the night—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that it would be fair to tell hon. Members who have arrived now that they have missed some virtuoso performances. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have you."] I have been here. Above all was the virtuoso performance by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a graduate of the Quasimodo school of deportment and who kept the House up for some two hours.
This series of amendments covers the relationship between the Secretary of State and the advisory committee. That relationship is not dissimilar from that of Idi Amin and his army in their heyday, in that the Secretary of State may say what he will and the advisory committee will do what it is told to do. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to give directions to the committee. Our amendment maintains the link between the Secretary of State and the committee. We concede, for example, that he will have input regarding finance, but we would give

him the power only to inform the committee and not to direct it. In that way, the committee would pursue its investigations in possession of all the relevant information but independent from the Secretary of State. Above all, our amendment is searching for a modicum of independence in the clause. I hope that when the Minister of State replies, she will give her attention to the independence that there will be on the part of members of the committee.
Reading the clause, we think that there will be no interest in what the committee might have to say — perhaps a passing interest, but in all the verbiage that we have had, it has become abundantly clear from the Government's responses that they are not interested in anything but the imposition of the Bill on teachers and employers. I have yet to meet a teacher or employer who feels that this emergency measure will be of benefit to them. Certainly it will in no way enhance their status.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who accused me of not speaking for some 14 hours, should concede that in a marathon, it is rather pointless to accuse someone who is running second, third and fourth leg of not contributing greatly to the first. I shall now listen to what the Minister has to say—

Mr. Fatchett: I should be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman wants to hear from the Minister about the principles of running a marathon. The hon. Gentleman said that it was sensible to keep the sprinters until the end of the marathon. We see that he is well fitted for that role. There is a danger that one needs runners in the earliest parts of the marathon. The Minister may well feel that the alliance has not provided us with runners for the earlier part of the marathon.

Mr. Freud: That intervention was not only stupid but pathetic. We had a five and a seven-hour debate on minor amendments, which many people with a selectivity of wisdom would have felt were less important than the major amendments that are now coming up.
It seems crucial that we should get the advisory committee right. These amendments deal with the relationship between the Secretary of State and the advisory committee. The Minister was not, of course, being asked to comment on the aesthetics of athletics or marathon running but on the relationship that she feels she will have with the committee and on the power the committee will have to be independent to the extent of choosing its own chairman, to select its own vice-chairman, to make decisions and to have genuine contact with the teachers and the employers so that they will have input that will not be brushed aside by the Secretary of State, but will have statutory powers.

Mr. Peter Pike: I wish to speak to amendment No. 81, which states:
which shall include the need to maintain and improve the morale of school teachers.
I recognise that with the length of time that some debates have gone on, many issues have already been covered. Obviously with one's eye on the time, one cannot, at this stage cover all the points that are being made in this group of amendments.
I believe that the morale of the teachers educating our children is vital. It is true to say that over the past few years the morale of teachers has reached a low ebb. Indeed, until there are real and positive changes in direction by the


Government as a whole and a willingness to provide the resources necessary for education, that situation will continue. We believe that to set up this body is moving in the wrong direction, but we recognise that the Government will be able to force the Bill through because of their majority. However, if it has to go through we believe that morale has to be one of the issues considered by the advisory committee so that it is given proper consideration and importance.
If the morale of teachers is not good it affects the education of all our children. We want to ensure that the teachers have sufficient interest to be able to give our children a good education. I know that many people have said on numerous occasions that education is one of the biggest single investments that we make for the future of the country. Therefore, it is important that that investment is used to its full advantage.
We recognise the Government's argument, but we obviously disagree with their approach. However, I am sure that both sides of the Committee recognise that if we are to have a good education system we need teachers whose morale is at a high level. Therefore, it is important to overcome the difficulties of the past couple of years.
The mail on this issue from my constituency is only just beginning to come through because there was a postal strike in my constituency last week. However, even in the past 24 hours I have opened letters from teachers who are expressing their concern about the way in which the Government are moving and who believe that the Government and the Secretary of State will have so many powers that the power of negotiation and free collective bargaining will rest solely with the Secretary of State. I know that the Secretary of State will argue that that is not the objective and the Government will obviously argue that it is a step forward. However, one has to accept that those working in the education profession, the teachers themselves, do not see it as a step forward. We must accept the view of the teachers on this. The Government have already turned down an amendment which merely provided for consultation on appointments to the advisory committee. Far from improving, morale among teachers is likely to deteriorate. That would be most regrettable.
10 am
If the Government have any serious intention to improve the situation in education I hope that they will accept that morale is of great importance. They always say that they do, of course, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) pointed out, what Ministers say in debate is not the law. The law will be the wording of the Bill when it becomes an Act. If the Government believe that improving morale is important, perhaps they will show it by accepting at least amendment No. 81. I am sure that that would be welcomed, not just by the teachers' unions but by all in the teaching profession as well as by the parents of our schoolchildren. This should not be a political issue. It should attract the support of Members on both sides of the House.
At this stage of the proceedings I shall limit my comments to just one aspect of the amendments, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to speak on the other important points raised by this group of amendments. I believe that the Government recognise the crucial importance of morale among teachers. If that is true, let

them show it by accepting amendment No. 81 and securing a modest improvement in the retrograde step that they have taken in introducing the Bill.

Mr. Michael Hancock: It is nice to participate at long last, having sat through six hours of yesterday's proceedings before concluding that what was happening was of no use whatever.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones (Vice Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): It is nice to see the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber at long last.

Mr. Hancock: I am glad to be here.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) talked about the morale of teachers. I do not believe that prolonging the agony, with one Opposition Member after another trying to gain brownie points from the teacher by speaking for as long as possible, will do anything whatever to boost the morale of teachers, parents, pupils at school or students in sixth form colleges who have seen the dramatic change that has taken place in education in the last five years. It is a travesty to suggest that our proceedings here yesterday, today and perhaps even tomorrow will do anything to alter the teachers' distruct of the Secretary of State's philosophy of trying to hammer things through or that they will induce any kind of confidence among teachers or their union representatives. Nevertheless, the exercise has to be gone through.
With the Secretary of State, I sat through the long agonies on the Local Government Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is he talking about?"] I am talking about the need to boost morale. I went through that earlier exercise in the mistaken belief that prolonging the Committee stage and speaking for hour upon hour was boosting the morale of councillors trying to save the GLC and the metropolitan councils. I learnt that that was completely untrue. The metropolitan councillors who spoke to me afterwards said that they thought the whole thing was a sham and a farce.
I went through a similar exercise last year and, for my sins, prolonged the agony of the Dockyard Services Bill by speaking for close on one hour simply to drag out the debate. I was asked whether I was good for an hour. [Interruption.] I have several letters which confirm that I am better than good for more than one hour. It was suggested that it was time that the alliance did its bit to delay the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is good for an hour at the moment, but his speech must be on this group of amendments.

Mr. Hancock: I have good news for the House—an hour is not forthcoming today.
Amendment No. 50 is a step in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) made the alliance's stance on the Bill clear on Second Reading, so criticisms about lack of speeches are ill founded. If the Secretary of State can see through the mud that he has tried to pour over the issue, he will see that amendment No. 50 is a real opportunity to go some small way towards redressing the difficulties that many people envisage.
Amendment No. 50 would allow a wider understanding of the problems which the Secretary of State, county councils and the advisory committee will face. It might


also give the people who wrote to me a better understanding of what is going on. Opposition Members have quoted from letters. The Association of Polytechnic Teachers wrote to me expressing its anxieties. If amendment No. 50 is accepted, its representations might be considered. It is represented on Burnham, but the Bill would shut off that representation.

Mr. Fatchett: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but if he had been here earlier he would know that the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) asked questions about the Association of Polytechnic Teachers and that the Minister gave various commitments. The hon. Gentleman would delay the Committee if he went through those arguments again when the Minister has already given such clear commitments.

Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the amendments to which he is referring fell. Commitments from Ministers mean nothing, because Ministers and Governments change. Consideration of polytechnic teachers' interests would be embodied in law, however, if amendment No. 50 were accepted. We can all talk about what went on in the past, but so far no amendment has succeeded. Whatever comes after the failure of these amendments should be seen as trying to embrace all the points that have been made.
I had hoped that the Government would realise, not from the expressions of concern and doubt in the House and the Committee, but by the concern of those at the coal face—the teachers, the parents and the students—the real problems that they are facing. I represent Hampshire, which employs 26,000 teachers. It has been beset with problems over the past two or three years, and those problems have not been helped by the Government's attitude or by that of the trade unions. However, that concern has been real and well founded. It is a sad reflection that something as important as the future of our children and the fabric of our education have been pushed even further over the abyss by this legislation.
The Bill would be a disaster in educational terms, and should be rejected. The alliance has made its views clear time and again. We would like to see a tripartite approach to negotiations, with the Government, the local authorities as the employers, and the teachers all playing a role, and with the opportunity for parents to have an input. I hope that the people of this country will realise that the only way that success will come to education, and morale in the profession improved, is not through manipulation but through a change of Government to a new Government with a strong realisation that education is as important as our existence on this planet. The only party hat has come near giving anything like that support to education is the alliance.
I hope that that message goes out. Amendment No. 50 is well worth supporting, and I am sure that all Opposition Members will see that. I hope that those Conservative Members who care about education will see that something that widens involvement in education is critical. We should all be grateful for that opportunity.
I am only sad that today has denied us two events. One is seeing the Leader of the Opposition, on his return from

the United States, combating the Prime Minister. One wonders whether there is not a link between today's events and the fact that we shall be denied that opportunity.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not wander too far away from the amendment.

Mr. Hancock: I was about to wander back to a sedentary position. The other event that the House will be denied is my asking question No. 1 at Prime Minister's Question Time. I am bitterly disappointed about that. The question would have been directed to the events in the House over the past few days and the future of education. I should have liked the right hon. Lady as a former Secretary of State for Education and Science, to explain—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not wander into tomorrow, if tomorrow never takes place.

Mr. Hancock: I was hoping to draw into my disappointment the fact that my question would have urged the Prime Minister to look carefully at amendment No. 50 and realise the merits of it, and how her colleagues had retreated from their duty in failing to support it. I urge the House to support it, because it gives us a real opportunity to redress some of the damage to education that has been done by the Government over the last three or four years.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am sorry that I cannot follow the simile about marathon races, because I have never participated in such events although I know that many people do participate. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) would have been excellent at that sport. If he would like to join me in a swim I would be more than happy to challenge him at any time.
I am glad that, in moving his amendment, the hon. Gentleman recognised that the advisory committee will need to work against the background of the relevant financial constraints. For the interim body we have concluded that the Secretary of State ought to have a more precise power to give directions to the committee about its considerations and its financial or other constraints, because the committee's recommendations will be subject to those constraints as well as to the time within which it has to report.
The power to give directions should be of considerable benefit to the committee during its interim life. For example, it would be quite stupid for the advisory committee remit not to take into account the financial position of local authorities and I am sure that no Opposition Member would suggest otherwise. The committee will also need to operate within the realistic framework of what local authorities can afford. Most local authorities operate within such a framework.
Other amendments have a common purpose—to weaken the control of the Secretary of State in determining matters upon which the committee is to advise and deciding within what constraints it should operate. I shall give two examples of this type of weakening. If the amendments were accepted the Secretary of State would not even be able to direct the committee that it ought to have in mind various considerations. Instead, he would be able only to give it advice and clearly, that would not be a sensible way for the advisory committee to set about its


task. Obviously, and not surprisingly, the Opposition would rather not permit the Secretary of State to advise the committee that its recommendations should be subject to certain financial considerations or, indeed, to any constraints. No doubt they would prefer the committee to assume that resources are totally limitless. It would be folly if the advisory committee's remit did not take into account the financial position of local authorities.

Mr. Tony Banks: An advisory committee made up of reasonably intelligent men and women will not do what the Minister suggests—take no notice whatever of financial conditions and be limitless in its approach? It is unrealistic to suggest that. The Minister cannot say that about people.

Mrs. Rumbold: Of course we expect the advisory committee to work within financial constraints, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could advise it about the kind of financial constraints under which it will work. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Because they will be reasonable people, we expect that that is the way in which they will operate.

Mr. George Park: Does the Minister realise that by using the word control she reveals the huge gap between us in the approach to this problem that we all want to see solved? In normal negotiations both sides would set out the position as they see it. The Minister would set down what he saw as the restraints and the teachers' organisations would put forward their case. That is why the Opposition are trying through amendments to persuade the Minister to come back to a negotiating posture, so that all the pros and cons, the restraints and the advantages, can be set on the table and freely negotiated. If that were possible, we would arrive at a mutual agreement. We would have peace in the schools and teachers would know that they had taken part in negotiations for a settlement and had not had a settlement imposed upon them.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is plausible, but the intention behind the amendment is to restrict the role of the Secretary of State in regard to the work of the interim advisory committee. The open-endedness of the terms of reference that Opposition Members would wish to see go very much along the lines that have been set out during the debate. It is important to remember that the advisory committee is being brought into place to replace arrangements that have failed. In turn, the committee will be succeeded, we hope, in due course, by other arrangements, which will have been duly discussed by the parties concerned, which will have been consulted.
In the brief time that the advisory committee will be in existence it will have a job to do. It will need some direction on the matters relating to pay and conditions of service on which it is to concentrate. I suggest that that is a proper function for the holder of my right hon. Friend's office. That function is to give assistance and any direction that it is appropriate to give on other constraints to which the recommendations are to be subject. It is on the basis of that clear approach that the committee should be able to give of its best.
Labour Members and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spent some time discussing the raising of morale in the teaching profession.

The hon. Gentleman's opposition to the Government's reasonable proposition is the factor that will damage the teachers most in the long term. Our proposals include a substantial pay increase for teachers next year and the putting into place of an effective system of pay determination in the medium term.

Mr. Hancock: I understand what the Minister is saying, and no one appreciates the need for teachers to have a decent pay rise more than I do. I support that proposition wholeheartedly. I shall be interested to know whether the hon. Lady considers that amendment No. 50 will cause teachers to think that they will not have better vehicle for negotiations in future. I shall be interested also to know whether she can state to what she objects in amendment No. 50. If she reads it carefully, she will appreciate that its wording is far better than the relevant passage in the Bill. I think that the hon. Lady owes those who are associated with the amendment a proper explanation of what is it she sees that will constrain the Secretary of State, other than telling the truth to his appointees.

Mrs. Rumbold: I have already paid tribute to those who tabled amendment No. 50 in so far as it recognises that there is a need to have a financial constraint placed upon the interim committee. My right hon. Friend and I understand what those who are associated with the amendment have tried to do. We do not accept that it is quite as good or accurate as the relevant passage in the Bill, but we recognise the attempt that has been made to put forward their point of view.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South contended that the low morale of teachers would continue if the Bill were to be enacted. I am trying to explain to him as best as I can—poorly, I know—that it is our belief that the proposals that are set out in the Bill will give the teachers stability and the certain knowledge that there will be a system for determination of their pay in the medium term. This will enable them to raise their morale and to return to work feeling that there is at least a Government who care about the way in which their pay structure should be dealt with and the way in which they operate within the schools. We feel that that is most important.
A number of other amendments have been brought to the attention of the Committee. There are issues such as the advisory committee having the discretion to decide which association of local education authorities appears to it to be concerned. It is possible that some authorities could form themselves into a group or association that had no common interest in teachers' pay and conditions. It would be somewhat irrelevant for the Government to accept amendments of that character, and most of the amendments before us fall into that category. I suggest that the Committee rejects them.

Mr. Fatchett: At this stage of the debate, it may be useful to state the official Opposition's position in relation to amendment No. 50. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), the spokesman for the Liberal party, said that the Liberals had prioritised amendment No. 50. It was an amendment of supreme and significant importance. If hon. Members have a policy of priorities and pick on particular issues, it is important that we develop a strategy at the early part of the debate.
It is clear that the alliance strategy has worked. Alliance Members waited until amendment No. 50 was under discussion, to "'major" on it, to use an American


expression. Liberal Members had not spoken until 9.45 am, when the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East spoke for 17 minutes. He preserved himself for his contribution to the debate on this important amendment. Alliance Members did not intervene. They saved all their fire power for amendment No. 50. So far, the total contributions to the debate, in this process of prioritising, by the alliance parties—even with the hon. Gentleman's contribution—comprised 36 minutes contribution to the total debate over 118 hours. Without trying to be too much of a mathematician, that totals 3·33 per cent. between the two parties. Clearly—[AN HON. MEMBER: "It is like an opinion poll".] And it is like an opinion poll rating. Clearly, the policy of prioritising amendment No. 50 worked perfectly. Alliance Members waited until that point.
Nobody would disagree with the purpose of the amendment. To a great extent, it is self-fulfilling and self-satisfying. We will support the amendment because any attempt to get some information out of the Secretary of State as to the contraints under which the advisory body will operate will be of benefit. If alliance parties Members examine their own amendment, they will see that it is badly drafted. I shall ask my hon. Friends to support it, but they may be worried about supporting it for certain reasons. I do not know whether the Minister commented upon this matter. The alliance amendment states:
The Secretary of State shall inform the Committee of any financial constraints".
If political parties claim to believe in the disclosure of information into the public domain, it would be important that not only does the Secretary of State inform the advisory committee but that he makes that information available to the relevant parties.
If we are to "major" on an amendment, it is crucially important that that amendment is right. It may take us back to some of the arguments that we used in which we suggested that there had been a rush from Second Reading to Committee. If there had been more time, the inconsistencies of the amendment would have been noted.
I ask my hon. Friends to support the amendment simply on the ground that we wish more constraints to be placed upon the advisory committee. We say to the alliance parties, "When you do it again, please do better. Please make sure that you think through all the implications. If you are to have a flow of information, we would like it in the public domain because that is where it should be". We previously thought that that was the policy of the alliance parties. It clearly is not the case. Maybe this belief in secrecy has characterised the alliance parties' contribution to the debate.

Mr. Rogers: The clause emphasises the central role that the Secretary of State intends to take in the future settlement of teachers' demands about pay and conditions of work. The Minister said that the committee should have regard to the financial position of local authorities. In saying that, the Minister put the importance of local authorities in the payment and employment of teachers at the centre of the debate. It is strange that she should emphasise that the local authorities' financial position should be one of the main considerations of the committee, because it is not intended that they should be represented

on it. Thus local authorities will have to pick up the bill for 54 per cent. of the teachers' remuneration without having any say.
10.30 am
The Minister and her Friends continually say, "Why should the Burnham committee reach a settlement but the Government have to pick up the tab?" They imply that the Government are dispensing their own money, and not money that belongs to the people.
Clause 2 proposes setting up a body that will recommend the amount of expenditure made by the local authorities—they will pay the bulk of it—without giving them any representation. Therefore, the Government are confounded and defeated by their own argument. They will not accept the amendment because of their dogmatic attitude towards wage earners. That just shows the nonsense of their blind hatred towards people who earn salaries and wages, as opposed to those who can fix commissions or charge fees to earn their living.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has left the Chamber, because I should have liked to address my comments to him directly. I have to admit that I am one of those hon. Members who had a reasonable night's sleep, and who came back early this morning to participate in the debate. It was a pleasure for me to see the newly risen hon. Member for Portsmouth, South come into the Chamber, looking very spruce, to address us this morning—[Interruption.] It is no surprise that he is known as the part-time hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. However, I did not like the fact that he made me feel so sad. He said that he was sad, but I have never heard a more depressing speech. He spoke first about the length of the debate—not that he had been here. He then said that we were not giving support and morale to the teachers, although he did not even suggest an alternative. He spoke about travesties and disasters, and said that the debate was a sham and a farce. I imagine that he spent the night consulting some thesaurus. It was suggested that he might be good for a speech lasting an hour, but if it was going to be an hour of that, I am sure that we would all have found our way to a clinic.

Mr. Fatchett: Last night I intervened when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) commented on the absence of members of the alliance parties and, among other things, on the way in which ACAS works. I reminded my hon. Friend that at a rally yesterday in Central hall, Westminster, which was organised by the National Union of Teachers, the SDP spokesman, Anne Sofer, committed the SDP to fighting the Bill line by line. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) feel that Anne Sofer's remarks were consistent with the policies set out by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South?

Mr. Rogers: I shall not comment on the position of either Anne Sofer or the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, but I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not returned to the Chamber. I shall not stray into discussing ACAS, because, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) knows, our flat Welsh vowels create problems for us in pronouncing the second part of ACAS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) is absolutely right in saying that the SDP gives promises but does not fulfil them. Alliance Members come


to the Chamber and try to depress us. Hon. Members were enjoying the night, and found a great thrill in the arguments of the debate, the constructive attitudes of the Opposition, and the negative arguments adopted by the Government. Then the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South came here in such a defeatist mood, and that has made me very sad.
The amendment is vital and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central said earlier, Opposition Members will have to support it. Indeed, the alliance amendments are important because they seek to put the position of the local authorities and of the advisory committee at the centre of the argument.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister said that those on the advisory committee could, if they were not given directions about financial constraints, act in such a way as to assume that there were no constraints. I do not know who the Minister or the Secretary of State are considering appointing to the advisory committee. Indeed, that is one of the problems. I have not sat through all the debate. I was here until about 2 am, but then I left for four or five hours. Therefore, I do not know whether the Minister has told the Committee the names of the people who will be on the advisory committee.

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I have not.

Mr. Banks: If the Minister has not advised hon. Members of that, one can assume only that the list exists somewhere. I imagine that it will be difficult to get anybody with any self-respect to serve on the advisory committee. However, as there is little self-respect in the Tory party these days, the Minister's job will not be that difficult, because those appointed will probably all be hand-picked Tories. Even if they are hand-picked Tories, it is difficult to accept that they will not be aware of the general financial problems. They would be peculiarly detached if they were not aware of the financial positions of the Government and the local authorities.
I also found it strange that the Minister said that, if one has an advisory committee, one gives it directions on financial matters. I should have thought that an advisory committee would be able to look at a situation impartially and to offer advice to the Secretary of State. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State is under no compulsion to accept any advice that he is given. Why bother to give the advisory committee directions if the Secretary of State can ultimately ignore its advice, even if that advice is within the constraints of the directions that he has given them?
Quite frankly, the committee will be a stooge or a poodle committee. Whatever adjective one uses, nobody with any self-respect or standing in education is likely to want to serve on that sort of committee. Therefore, we shall look with great interest at the names of those people. Perhaps some people hope to serve and to be rewarded eventually by elevation to the other place, or by the baubles that the Prime Minister can hand out from time to time.
I did not propose to speak to the amendment until my hon. Friends started discussing the fact that education authorities pay about 54 per cent. of the costs of teachers' salaries. Overall, that is no doubt true. However, in the absence of block grant, the Inner London education authority pays 100 per cent. of the pay bill of inner London teachers. Under the Bill, it will lose any effective influence that it has, other than through consultation. It

is unacceptable that the Government, who pay nothing at all, should have the temerity to say that they will tell ILEA, which pays everything, what it must do. That is thoroughly unacceptable, and that is why I support the amendment.

Mr. Freud: After 10 hours of debate, I suggested that we might make progress. There were enraged cries from Labour Members who explained that, far from taking their time on a specific batch of amendments, they were using the Committee of the whole House procedure as we would normally use such procedure upstairs in Committee. With the promise that that would be continued throughout the passage of the Bill, I did not beg to move, That the Question be now put. I have been here for all but three hours of the debate—[Interruption.] The Chair refused the closure, and I did not seek to move it again, although that debate continued for another five and a half hours. However, 15½ hours of debate on clause 1 and less than three hours of debate on clause 2 would seem to fall short of that promise.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that we majored on amendment No. 50. We certainly believe that the committee's constitution is of considerable importance. Indeed, we consider clause 2 to be of great importance. The amendment asks that
The Secretary of State shall inform the Committee of any financial or other constraints which he considers to be relevant to their consideration of the remuneration and other conditions of employment of teachers, and as to the time within which they are to submit their report.
However flawed the amendment may be in the eyes of hon. Members in that it does not make a great song and dance about freedom of information, it remains eminently acceptable. I cannot see why the Minister should look into the middle distance or why she should do anything but accept it. If the hon. Member for Leeds, Central wants to add the rider that all information should be freely given to those who want to be in receipt of it, we will certainly not object.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has left the Chamber, but he made a relevant point when he said that the teachers' morale was crucial. If we can get any good out of this defective legislation, it must be to persuade the teachers that it will, to some extent, be to their benefit. To date, a vast amount of time has been taken up in acccusations and counter accusations about the absence of hon. Members at specific times. It is only fair to put on record that we have been here for 18½ hours so far, and no hon. Member can remain conscious in the Chamber for that long. It is twice as long as an HGV driver is allowed to drive under EEC regulations. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will stop scoring cheap points about the temporary absences of certain hon. Members.
Throughout this debate, the Benches of all three participating parties have been manned. If the alliance bench has not been as heavily manned as other Benches, the iniquities of our electoral system are to blame. However, on a percentage basis we are even now more heavily represented in the Chamber than any other party.

Mr. Rogers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we were not criticising him or his Liberal colleagues who have participated in the debate. We were stung into retaliating because no SDP Member was present. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) had the gall to come into the Chamber and to castigate hon. Members who had been in the Chamber for 18½ hours. We


were not scoring cheap political points but responding to the hon. Gentleman's cheek in saying that. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) will accept that intervention in the spirit in which it is made.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Now that we have got that off our chests, I hope that we can return to the amendments.

Mr. Freud: I would, of course, accept absolutely anything in the spirit in which it was offered. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who has been here for much longer than the average hon. Member, made an important point when he voiced the concern of his constituency teachers.

Mr. Hanley: Look at the voting records.

Mr. Freud: That sort of attitude is totally unconstructive.
The Minister spoke of a more precise power that was to be given to the Secretary of State. I wonder what she means. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to ignore any contribution. Clause 3 states:
Where the Advisory Committee has reported to the Secretary of State on any matter, he may, after consulting—

(a) such associations of local education authorities as appear to him to be … desirable."
That will not make teachers feel wanted or respected. The clause also refers to
such organisations representing school teachers as appear to them to be concerned".
We want teachers and employers to have the right to have some input into the advisory committee.
I realise that the Minister has things to say to the Under-Secretary of State, and that she would rather do that than listen to the debate. However, it is absurd to make us sit through proceedings on this Bill if she does not intend to listen to our reasonable amendments. This series of amendments would make the teachers and employers respect the committee a little more than they will do, given that the Bill is so negative. They should, therefore, be accepted by Opposition Members. Indeed, although there may be internal sniping, the Opposition are united in disagreeing with the Bill and all that it represents. I therefore ask all hon. Members—heaven knows, there are few enough in the House, and we had more at 3 am than we have now—to vote in favour of the amendments, and against this nasty little Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 224.

Division No.32]
[10.48 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blair, Anthony


Alton, David
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Bruce, Malcolm


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Caborn, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clarke, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clay, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David Gordon


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Donald





Conlan, Bernard
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Martin, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Maxton, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, Stan
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Michie, William


Cunningham, Dr John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Eadie, Alex
Park, George


Eastham, Ken
Parry, Robert


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fatchett, Derek
Pendry, Tom


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Flannery, Martin
Radice, Giles


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Raynsford, Nick


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Foulkes, George
Rogers, Allan


Freud, Clement
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Garrett, W. E.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Gould, Bryan
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Gourlay, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hancock, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Janner, Hon Greville
Stott, Roger


John, Brynmor
Straw, Jack


Johnston, Sir Russell
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Tinn, James


Kennedy, Charles
Wainwright, R.


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert


Lamond, James
Weetch, Ken


Leadbitter, Ted
Winnick, David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McCartney, Hugh



McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tellers for the Ayes:


McKelvey, William
Mr. A. J. Beith and


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Mr. James Wallace.


McTaggart, Robert





NOES


Adley, Robert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Aitken, Jonathan
Bright, Graham


Alexander, Richard
Brinton, Tim


Amess, David
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Ancram, Michael
Bruinvels, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Churchill, W. S.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cockeram, Eric


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Colvin, Michael






Coombs, Simon
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Cope, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cormack, Patrick
Lyell, Nicholas


Corrie, John
McCrindle, Robert


Critchley, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dickens, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dicks, Terry
McQuarrie, Albert


Dorrell, Stephen
Madel, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Major, John


Dunn, Robert
Malins, Humfrey


Durant, Tony
Malone, Gerald


Dykes, Hugh
Marland, Paul


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Marlow, Antony


Eggar, Tim
Mather, Carol


Evennett, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fallon, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mellor, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Franks, Cecil
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Freeman, Roger
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gale, Roger
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Galley, Roy
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Neubert, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Onslow, Cranley


Gow, Ian
Oppenheim, Phillip


Greenway, Harry
Ottaway, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pawsey, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hanley, Jeremy
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hannam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Haselhurst, Alan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Raffan, Keith


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hayward, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Henderson, Barry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hicks, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hill, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hind, Kenneth
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hirst, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Holt, Richard
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howard, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Scott, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sims, Roger


King, Rt Hon Tom
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spencer, Derek


Knowles, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knox, David
Squire, Robin


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lang, Ian
Stern, Michael


Latham, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lester, Jim
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)





Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thornton, Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Woodcock, Michael


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Tellers for the Noes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. David Lightbown and


Ward, John
Mr. Michael Portillo.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 145.

Division No. 33]
[10.59 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fallon, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alexander, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Ancram, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fry, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Galley, Roy


Batiste, Spencer
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Greenway, Harry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brinton, Tim
Hannam, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bruinvels, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hirst, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Colvin, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Corrie, John
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knowles, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lang, Ian


Eggar, Tim
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel






Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lester, Jim
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lightbown, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lilley, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rowe, Andrew


Lyell, Nicholas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Scott, Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McQuarrie, Albert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, John
Shersby, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Antony
Spencer, Derek


Mather, Carol
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maude, Hon Francis
Squire, Robin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Onslow, Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Oppenheim, Phillip
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ottaway, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Ward, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Pawsey, James
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitfield, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Portillo, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Proctor, K. Harvey
Woodcock, Michael


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rathbone, Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Tony Durant


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. Peter Lloyd.


Ridsdale, Sir Julian





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Buchan, Norman


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashdown, Paddy
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Thomas


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clay, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clelland, David Gordon


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Blair, Anthony
Corbett, Robin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Boyes, Roland
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Crowther, Stan


Bruce, Malcolm
Cunliffe, Lawrence





Cunningham, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alex
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eastham, Ken
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Park, George


Fatchett, Derek
Parry, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Radice, Giles


Foster, Derek
Raynsford, Nick


Foulkes, George
Redmond, Martin


Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Garrett, W. E.
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gould, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted


Gourlay, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Hancock, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hardy, Peter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Howells, Geraint
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Spearing, Nigel


Janner, Hon Greville
Steel, Rt Hon David


John, Brynmor
Stott, Roger


Johnston, Sir Russell
Strang, Gavin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Straw, Jack


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Kennedy, Charles
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Kirkwood, Archy
Tinn, James


Lambie, David
Wainwright, R.


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ronald
Wareing, Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Weetch, Ken


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Welsh, Michael


McCartney, Hugh
Winnick, David


McKelvey, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McTaggart, Robert



Madden, Max
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Martin, Michael
Mr. Allen McKay.


Maxton, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAKE PROVISION BY ORDER

Mr. Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in page 2, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 139, in page 2, line 22, leave out from beginning, to end of line 20 on page 3 and insert—
'from time to time (and as soon as may be) lay before Parliament the report of the Advisory Committee. If such a Report is disapproved by a resolution of either House of Parliament passed within forty days beginning with the date of laying (and exclusive of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both


Houses are adjourned for more than four days) then the Secretary of State shall as soon as may be make such changes or further changes in the Report as appear to him to be required in the circumstances so that the statement of those changes be laid before Parliament at latest by the end of the period of forty days beginning with the date of the resolution (but exclusive as aforesaid).'
No. 143, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'Committee' to end of line 25.
No. 144, in page 2, line 23, leave out 'with or'.
No. 145, in page 2, line 23, leave out from 'modification' to end of line 25, and insert—
'providing any modifications have first been referred back to the Advisory Committee for further consultation prior to the placing of any order.'.
No. 146, in page 2, line 24, leave out lines 24 and 25.
No. 153, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Any order made following the recommendations of the Committee under section 3(1), shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

No. 156, in page 2, line 26, leave out 'which contains" and insert 'must contain'.

New clause 10—Provisions as to Orders—

'(1) An order may, instead of containing the provision to be made, refer to provisions set out in a document published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and direct that those provisions shall have effect or, as the case may be, be amended in accordance with the order.
(2) The effect of an order is—

(a) so far as it relates to remuneration, that the remuneration of teachers to whom the order applies shall be determined, and they are to have regard and financial or other constraints to which their recommendations are to be subject, and as to the time within which they are to report to him.
(3) An order made under this Act may make retrospective provision but not so as to require the reduction of a.teachers pay in respect of a past period.
(4) No order made under sections 4 and 5 of this Act may make different provision for different areas or for different cases otherwise then in accordance with an agreement made between teachers and their employers.
(5) The Secretary of State may not approve any recommendation of the Advisory Committee as regards conditions of employment so as to remove or diminish any contractual entitlement of a teacher.'.

Mr. Radice: As we should all know after 18 or 19 hours of discussion, the objective of the Bill is to abolish collective bargaining and substitute in its place a system of ministerial diktat. The purpose of this group of amendments is to highlight the exceptional and unacceptable powers that clause 3 grants to the Secretary of State.
I should like to remind the Committee of the powers that will be granted. Clause 3(6) allows the Secretary of State to impose a settlement by order before 1 October 1987. It will also be possible for the Secretary of State to backdate any order to April 1986. That is the first exceptional power. I need not remind the Minister that it is a new power. Contrary to what the Secretary of State told us, he does not have that power under the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 or under the Education Act 1944. Once the advisory committee is set up—and we should remember that the Secretary of State will appoint the members of the committee, he will pay for it, set its agenda and also choose the chairman and deputy chairman—the Secretary of State can modify recommendations and impose his own settlement.
When the Secretary of State makes an order, he or she can make provision for different areas. That point has

been highlighted earlier. He can also impose conditions of service on teachers through their contracts of employment, though the Government do not employ teachers. The local authorities are, of course, their employers. The Secretary of State can impose on the local authorities the obligation to impose conditions of service through teachers' contracts of employment. That is a most unusual and exceptional power that has been commented upon by the Opposition during the debate and by commentators outside Parliament.
I am terribly sorry, but I seem to have forgotten the name of the Deputy Chairman. Of course, it is Sir Paul; Forgive me, Sir Paul; after 18 hours of debate it is a dreadful insult to forget your name and I apologise for that.
The Opposition amendments are designed to minimise the damage caused by clause 3 and I do not pretend that they will do more than minimise that damage. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will discuss the amendments in more detail when he replies. In principle we oppose the authoritarian assumption of ministerial powers. Therefore we will not only be voting for our amendments but, if we have the opportunity, will vote against clause 3 stand part.

Mrs. Rumbold: It would be for the convenience of the House if I tried to explain the Government's position with regard to the amendment so that I can clarify the position before the debate continues.

Mr. Radice: It would also be useful, as this is in a sense a clause 3 stand part debate—I doubt whether we shall have an opportunity to have a clause 3 stand part debate—if the Secretary of State will tell the Committee why he is taking the powers that I have outlined.

Mrs. Rumbold: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the power to backdate.

Mr. Radice: No, I did not mean that.

Mrs. Rumbold: Very well, I will consider the amendments as they appear on the Amendment Paper and proceed to consider amendment No. 126 which seeks to delete "may" and insert "shall".
The amendment would, in effect, compel the Secretary of State to make some provision by order after receiving a report from the advisory committee. It is certainly expected that on most occasions when the advisory committee has reported to the Secretary of State, he will proceed to make such an order after consultation with the local authorities and trade unions. However, that may not always be so. The committee may have been asked to report on a simple, single issue, for example, problems of shortage subjects. The committee might recommend a course of action that entailed changing present remuneration. The Secretary of State might then consult the local authorities and/or unions. As a result of the consultations, he might be persuaded that the advisory committee's advice should not be taken and that it would be better to leave matters as they were.
If the clause was amended, that discretion would not rest with the Secretary of State and he would be compelled to make an order on the subject even if he had no changes to propose. It is better to have discretion which Opposition Members may be absolutely assured that the Secretary of State will use sensibly and reasonably.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that under the provisions in the Bill, the Secretary of State will hand pick his committee and if it makss a recommendation that he does not like, he can veto it again at that stage?

Mrs. Rumbold: The Secretary of State is bound to consult local authorities and the unions. Having done that, he may have to explain his views and they may explain theirs. He must act reasonably. Whatever his advice, the Secretary of State must bring it to the House. If he chooses not to alter that advice, as we have explained before, it will be subject to a negative resolution. In other words, Opposition Members may call for a debate on a negative resolution.
If, on the other hand, the Secretary of State receives advice that he wants to alter, he must bring that to the House on an affirmative resolution and that will be debated on the Floor of both Houses. There is a safeguard for this House and the other place to have adequate debate on the subject.
Amendment No. 139 seeks to delete most of clause 3 including all of the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and put in its place a provision that the reports of the advisory committee are to be laid before Parliament and subject to disapproval by resolution of either House and subsequent amendment. There is no power left to the Secretary of State or anyone else to make the recommendations in the report effective. That is a little difficult to understand, and I am not sure that I follow the arrangements as envisaged in the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The aim of the amendment is to get over the problem that always faces the House of Commons that when it receives an order it can either approve it or throw it out. A package may contain five or six good points and one to which the majority in the House might object, yet that package may still be passed.
The amendment is a device to enable the House to amend the order, and transfers considerable power back to the House rather than to the Minister. I expect to hear reasons why the Government oppose the amendment. However, if they are claiming to be granting Parliament safeguards and control over the Secretary of State, then they should accept the amendment.

Mrs. Rumbold: By the time such a matter came to the House in the form of a negative or an affirmative resolution, I would hope that there would have been adequate consultation and agreement between the parties seeking to implement the advisory committee's proposals.

Mr. Freud: The Minister has said that there shall be adequate consultation. She will notice that the amendment asks for no more than that. It simply asks that "may" be deleted and "shall" be substituted. She said that there shall be more consultation. I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept this minor amendment.

Mrs. Rumbold: I have been trying to explain, somewhat tediously, the difference between the words, "may" and "shall". If we have "shall", that is an imperative, and the Secretary of State has to make an order even if there is nothing on which he can make an order. Amendment No. 139 is strange because, in effect, it suggests that Parliament would censure a report by an independent body such as the advisory committee. As there is no machinery for implementing the advisory committee's recommendations, such arrangements are clearly absurd. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 143, 144 and 146 would render the consultation with local authorities and unions about the committee's recommendations pointless. Whatever that consultation produced, the Secretary of State would have to implement the committee's recommendations as delivered. That gives the committee a greater power and a much more powerful role than is intended. The committee's recommendations should be subject to full consultation between local authorities and the unions. We do not want that to be ruled out.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Lady is not looking at the picture built up by the group of amendments. If she accepts the power of the House to amend the orders, it can make considerable sense to follow that through. I accept the hon. Lady's argument that it would be illogical for us to press this little group of amendments on its own, but, taken in conjunction with amendment No. 139, powers to vary the orders, would be given to the House instead of to the Secretary of State.

Mrs. Rumbold: That would be an extremely untidy arrangement and certainly would not comply with my right hon. Friend's vision of the clear advice that the advisory committee will give after it has had an opportunity to undertake the relevant consultations and reach its conclusions. It is then the job of the Secretary of State to go back to the unions and the local authorities for their views and, having had their views firmly fixed in his mind, to decide what recommendations to make to the House. It would be unsatisfactory in the extreme to change that arrangemnt.
Amendment No. 145, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), concerns procedures when it has been decided not to accept the advisory committee's recommendations in full. The Government believe that, during consultation with local authorities and unions, the best course of action may be to make some provisions differing somewhat from the committee's recommendations. If so, it would be for the Secretary of State to put those recommendations to the House. Consultation would be limited in scope if it were not possible to move far forward from the committee's recommendations. I hope that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East realises that it is important to have the two sets of consultations.
It is not necessary to have three lots of consultation with the committee. The committee will have given its independent advice. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider that in consultation with the local authorities. In that case, the committee will have had adequate time to consult with the parties and the Secretary of State will then go back to them to consult them on the committee's recommendations. To go back to the committee does seem to be appropiate at this stage.

Mr. Freud: We take issue with the subjunctive. We are concerned with the steady insistence that the Secretary of State "may" and the steady feeling that teachers will have that he will not.

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that I can honourably say that my right hon. Friend or any hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Tony Banks: Or hon. Lady.

Mrs. Rumbold: —or hon. Lady who holds the post of Secretary of State would act in a way that was totally appropriate to and compliant with the spirit of the interim


committee's work. I remind the committee that we are talking about a body that has a rather short life according to the Bill.
The intention of amendment No. 153 is to make all orders subject to affirmative resolutions. The Government believe that their procedures, which are laid down in the Bill, are preferable. When an order implements recommendations of the independent advisory committee, it is to be subjected to less parliamentary control than when it departs from those recommendations. The advisory committee will be of such standing that I hope that this proposed variation in procedure will be appropriate.
Amendment No. 156 would render pointless the consultation with local authorities and unions about the advisory committee's recommendations. Whatever that consultation produced, the Secretary of State would have to implement the committee's recommendations as delivered. This gives the committee a much more powerful role than we intend. Its recommendations should be subject to full consultation. What is finally implemented by order after consultation with the Secretary of State may be substantially different from the advisory committee's recommendation.
We are also considering new clause 10. I remind the Committee that the Bill's purpose is to set up interim arrangements for determining teachers' pay. It is not intended that any party should have a veto over the advisory committee's recommendations. There has always been regional variation in pay. Since 1945, a London weighting has been paid. I am sure that Labour Members would be the first to admit that that has been a benefit in present circumstances. Indeed, teachers' unions press every year, as I know to my cost, for this weighting to be increased. Different rates are paid for teachers in special schools and classes. The principle is already there, and this matter may well be referred to the advisory committee. I therefore suggest that that principle should remain.
I have endeavoured as best I can to give the flavour of what the amendments mean in the context of the clause. I hope that the Committee will accept my explanation and reject the amendments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Opposition are disappointed, but not surprised. The whole thrust of the legislation is to give the Secretary of State considerable extra powers. The Under-Secretary of State said that its provisions are intended to be temporary until March 1990. The Government do not seem to be confident of that, because they have included powers to continue those provisions for one year, and to go on continuing them after that. This may well be one of those pieces of legislation that are rushed through the House and are renewed year after year. It is not a good enough excuse to say that this is a short-term measure.
It is not satisfactory to say that the recommendations may be the subject of negative procedures. We can give many examples of the way in which the Government are able to take advantage of the House by using the negative resolution procedure, with the associated problems of considering prayers, and so on. With the affirmative procedure, if there is no matter of contention, the Government can have the measure passed at 10 o'clock on the nod with no problems. That means leaving power with Members of Parliament rather than with the Government.

Labour Members and, I think, Liberal Members, feel that the Government should consider in the other place making this provision subject to affirmative order.
We must tackle the fact that orders cannot be amended. We had an example of this yesterday upstairs in Committee with regard to student grant regulations, the majority of which increase the grants for students. It was impossible for Opposition parties to vote against a set of orders that increased the grant for students even though we felt that the grant increase was insufficient, and the minor clauses that dealt with the provisions for mature students were particularly unfair.
If we can find a way which will allow the House to amend those sort of orders it would be much more reasonable for Ministers to take increased powers to make such orders. However, as long as Ministers have the power to lay an order and the House has to take it or reject it, that stokes up the power far too much in favour of the Minister and takes far too much power away from the House of Commons.
I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the lobby to vote for our amendment, which shows our dissatisfaction with this part of the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 235.

Division No. 34]
[11.30 am


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fatchett, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Flannery, Martin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Garrett, W. E.


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman


Blair, Anthony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Gourlay, Harry


Bruce, Malcolm
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Caborn, Richard
Hancock, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cartwright, John
Heffer, Eric S.


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clarke, Thomas
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clay, Robert
Howells, Geraint


Clelland, David Gordon
Hoyle, Douglas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Janner, Hon Greville


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Kennedy, Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kirkwood, Archy


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, Dr John
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dobson, Frank
McCartney, Hugh


Dormand, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William


Eadie, Alex
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor






McTaggart, Robert
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Martin, Michael
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meadowcroft, Michael
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Michie, William
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Nellist, David
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William
Strang, Gavin


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Straw, Jack


Park, George
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, R.


Pendry, Tom
Wallace, James


Penhaligon, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Weetch, Ken


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael


Raynsford, Nick
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Don Dixon and


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Tony Banks.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dicks, Terry


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Amess, David
Dunn, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony


Aspinwall, Jack
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Eggar, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Batiste, Spencer
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bruinvels, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butterfill, John
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gow, Ian


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gregory, Conal


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Chope, Christopher
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hannam, John


Cockeram, Eric
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Cope, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Corrie, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Couchman, James
Hayward, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Crouch, David
Henderson, Barry


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hill, James





Hirst, Michael
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Holt, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Price, Sir David


Howard, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Key, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrindle, Robert
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


McQuarrie, Albert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Major, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Marland, Paul
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maude, Hon Francis
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trippier, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mellor, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Merchant, Piers
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Moate, Roger
Whitfield, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wolfson, Mark


Neale, Gerrard
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Rt Hon George


Oppenheim, Phillip



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Mr. David Lightbown and


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Michael Portillo.


Pattie, Geoffrey

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 2, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
'not provide for other than a system of remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales.'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 169, in page 2, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 173, in page 2, line 41, leave out from 'that' to end of line 43 and insert—
'matters may be settled by agreement between, or in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employer.'.
and No. 174, in page 2, line 41, leave out from 'provide' to end of line 43 and insert—
'that to the extent that matters specified in the order have not been settled by agreement between, or in a manner agreed between, teachers and their employers at the date on which the order is made, the order shall have effect with regard to those matters.'.
and new clause 11—Starting salaries for teachers in shortage subjects—
'No arrangement or determination made pursuant to section 3 of this Act shall preclude the headteacher of a school from appointing a member of staff in a shortage subject at a higher starting salary than that for which the appointee would otherwise qualify.'.

Mr. Bennett: This group of amendments deals with the question of whether different rates of pay can be paid in different parts of the country or for people doing different jobs. Let me make it clear at the outset that different rates of pay already apply in different parts of the country. The most obvious example is the London allowance and there are also different scales north of the border. In addition to those two geographical differences, different rates are paid in special schools. There were in the past special rates of pay in social priority areas and in one or two other circumstances.
Labour Members do not want to ask too many questions about the present payment of different rates, either for different areas or for teaching different groups of pupils. However, we would be alarmed if that system were to be extended. There have been a series of comments from Ministers which suggest that they are giving some consideration to that. If the Government want the legislation to proceed without many wild rumours and much concern, it would be helpful if they could make a clear statement on how far they see the extension of such variations to other parts of the country on a regional basis.
I have one or two doubts about the wisdom of the original introduction of London allowances. The introduction of that, not only in education but in quite a few other areas, may well have contributed to an increase in house prices within the London area. Each time the allowances are put up they may allow house prices to rise, and a vicious circle is created. However, that cannot be changed in education because the London allowances are tied to allowances in all sort of other areas and because of the extremely high housing costs within London.
However, to begin to extend that principle to different regions would create many problems. First, I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are some people on the boundaries of areas where London allowances are presently paid who feel that house prices are just as high in the area where no London allowance is being paid as some house prices within the area in which the London allowance is being paid. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that problem. Such problems always arise when one tries to designate particular areas in such a way.
If the Government were to consider London allowances along with others for other parts in the south of England, there might be lower rates of pay in parts of Wales or

Lincolnshire, or other areas where there are allegedly low housing costs or where perhaps unemployment rates are high. That would be unfair as a matter of principle and the Government would be storing up major problems among people living close to areas in which such allowances were payable.
11.45 am
On Second Reading I made the point that a particular unfairness arises when a benefit is carried through into a pension. Someone who is living in an area where the higher allowance is paid—in this case that would be London—who moves to a low cost area will continue, as I understand it, to receive a pension which takes into account the average of the best years' earnings in the previous three years. Therefore, that takes into account the London allowance. Such a person would continue to receive an enhanced pension compared with someone who has always lived in such a low cost area and who cannot enjoy a capital improvement on moving from one area to another. There are already problems about allowances which are paid according to regions and I hope that the Government will not attempt to go further along that line.
We must recognise that there are shortages of young teachers within the London area. The problem for young teachers is their basic rate of pay and that is one reason why the NUT in particular was keen to press for the long basic teacher allowance which would help people applying for a mortgage to show that their income would steadily increase to enable them to meet the repayments. In the short term, local authorities in London must look at assistance with housing and in the long term the Government must tackle the housing shortage within London so that not just teachers but many other people who are now finding it almost impossible to earn sufficient to pay a mortgage on a dwelling can obtain a house. Much more effort should be put into solving housing problems rather than in continually extending variations in pay.
Let me deal now with subject differentials. Various supporters of the Government have suggested that one of the solutions to shortages of maths and physics teachers is to pay higher rates for such teachers. Again, I had only a brief opportunity on Second Reading to point out some of the problems in this area. The real questions are first, how to define a shortage subject, and, secondly, a teacher of that shortage subject. One can often have teachers with an academic qualification in, say, maths or physics, who are, for one reason or another, not spending a great deal of their time teaching those subjects. The most obvious example is a head or a deputy head in a school. It would be illogical to pay such people extra because of some qualification if they are not using it or are using it for only part of the day.
Then there is the problem of those people who are filling in for a specialist who are doing their best to teach, say, physics, chemistry, design and technology, mathematics or one of the other shortage subjects. They will not have an academic or professional qualification in that area, but they are doing their best and will probably be putting in extra time to keep up with the subject. Yet, would such people be eligible for any extra payment? Once the Government start to look at such problems they will see that there are major practical difficulties.
If the Government want to solve the shortage of teachers of maths, physics, design and technology and micro-electronics they will have to consider the education


service as a whole. In particular, they must try to attract more children to study these subjects in our schools and then go into further education. They must also consider how to retain the teachers of shortage subjects. That could be done by raising the basic rate of pay for teachers and by ensuring that teachers have a long basic teaching scale, which will provide promotional opportunities. That would encourage them to remain as subject teachers instead of being lured away by the higher pay that is offered for administrative posts in schools—for example, deputy heads and head teachers.
Many of the problems over the teaching of science begin at primary level. We need more teachers in primary schools who are science literate, thus enabling them to include a small amount of science teaching in their normal class subjects. However, it would not be practical to pay one class teacher more for his science qualification and another teacher less. If specialist teachers are paid more money, it leads to problems. On many occasions they will be doing exactly the same work as their colleagues, yet they will be paid considerably more.
Schools frequently organise combined geography and biology field courses. Geography might not be recognised as a shortage subject, whereas biology is recognised as a shortage subject. There are many other examples. Many schools sensibly provide a combined science course for fourth and fifth year pupils—

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that heads already exercise flexibility over payment for specialist subjects, in particular for shortage subjects? Surely we want to encourage head teachers to exercise more discretion and flexibility.

Mr. Bennett: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my point. There are many other examples. Teachers with different qualifications may be teaching children the same subjects. That has been the position in schools for many years. Various means have been found to pay teachers of shortage subjects more money.
When I was a teacher on probation, another probationer—a maths teacher—who began at the same time as me made it clear to the head of the school that he would not remain there beyond his probationary year unless he was moved from a scale 1 to a scale 2 post. Those who teach shortage subjects are promoted more quickly. On some occasions they are promoted beyond their capability because the school wants either to attract or to retain a specialist teacher.
My teaching experience suggested that when that was done blatantly it caused a great deal of resentment and did not produce the co-operation that is needed to encourage a good atmosphere in schools is to be encouraged so that pupils can be taught well. At one school in which I worked a teacher was recruited to teach mathematics. He was put on a fairly high scale. He insisted upon teaching only the most able pupils in the first to the fifth years, leaving his colleagues to cope with the pupils who were less willing to study. The fact that he was receiving a considerably higher rate of pay than his colleagues, who had to work so much harder in the classroom, caused considerable resentment.

Mr. Flannery: If a physics teacher is already being paid extra for an important post, is my hon. Friend able to say whether he would also be paid more for teaching physics?

Mr. Bennett: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. It depends upon the Minister's intentions. It is tempting to float the idea, and the Minister may suggest that the advisory committee could look at it, However, I suspect that it would generate a great deal of resentment and that it would cause far more problems than it solved.
At this stage it would be better if the Secretary of State could give the idea a brief, preliminary airing and then conclude that when one introduces different rates of pay for teachers who are working side by side it is bound to create difficulties. Teachers have always been paid extra for additional responsibilities, on the basis that the extra responsibilities relate to duties outside the classroom or to duties that are in addition to their normal classroom teaching.
Classroom teachers ought to be paid the same basic rates. I accept that there has always been a small differential, depending upon whether teachers have undergone a two, three or four-year training period and also upon whether they have obtained ordinary or good degrees. Sufficiently significant differentials, introduced to attract teachers of specialist subjects, cause a great deal of resentment. I hope that the Minister of State will say that the Government do not intend to increase the differentials.

Mr. Madel: Bracketed with amendment No. 168 is new clause 11, to which I should like to address my remarks. It provides:
No arrangement or determination made pursuant to section 3 of this Act shall preclude the head teacher of a school from appointing a member of staff in a shortage subject at a higher starting salary then that for which the appointee would otherwise qualify".
According to the Bill, a head teacher can offer various promotional opportunities, but he cannot offer what is contained in new clause 11. The object of the new clause is to maintain the best possible curriculum for schoolchildren.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made a very interesting speech about the shortage subject problems which have been with us for many years. Both sides of the Committee have grappled with the problem created by the shortage of maths and physics teachers. Evidence was given to the Cockroft committee, after which it produced its report and conclusions. The House debated the report, but the problems remain. My object in putting down new clause 11 is to try to alleviate the problem, bearing in mind that we are moving towards a new advisory committee which, on a temporary basis, will advise the Secretary of State and take evidence from interested parties as to the pay and conditions, for the time being, of teachers.
The first problem for head teachers, which will be alleviated by new clause 11, is the tremendous variation in housing costs between the north-west and the south-east. There is a great deal of movement between those areas. If an industrial firm in the north-west wants its employees to move to the south-east, it has to dangle various salary carrots in front of them to encourage them to move to the south-east.
The problem does not relate just to housing costs. Rates are also a problem. There are sharp differences between the rates that are paid on houses in the south-east and those that are paid on houses in other parts of the country. There can be even sharper differences between the rates that are paid on houses in one county in the south-east and the rates that are paid in another county in the south-east.

Mr. Richard Holt: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the rates in the north are not excessive. Cleveland has the highest rates in the country.

Mr. Madel: I am not saying that at all. I am not making any comments on the rates in the north. I am talking about rates and the general cost of living in the south-east. I take my hon. Friend's point. I believe that Cleveland is involved in an interesting discussion about the rate support grant. I shall pull away from that rapidly because it would not be in order, although I would dearly like to make a great speech on the problems—

12 noon

Mr. Flannery: I am confused about what the new clause means. Can the hon. Gentleman give us an example of how a head would bring a teacher into a school at a rate higher than that due to him on the pay scale? How would the head do that?

Mr. Madel: I shall deal with that, but I was distracted. The hon. Gentleman knows that it sometimes takes me a little while to get to my main point. I think that we have all suffered from that in the past 18 hours.
I felt it appropriate to talk about regional variations because that is the sort of problem facing head teachers in Bedfordshire, to name but one county. If LEAs wish to fill a post, they have often difficulty attracting a person at the starting salary. The starting salary goes right through the age range. I feel that we must try to build positive inducements into the teachers' salary system so that people can move out of industry to teach shortage subjects. If people have worked in industry until they are 45 or 50, they would go into the teaching profession on the starting salary. I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is "indicating assent", which is how such things are described in the Official Report.
As I have said, that problem thwarts head teachers in their desire to appoint a member of staff to teach a specialist subject.
The next question is, who will decide what?

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that regional differences in salary structures need not only represent regional differences on cost, that is to say, rates, living costs and so on? They may also reflect the difficulty of recruiting people in areas that are not immediately thought of as attractive places to live in by many teachers. Regional variations could be used not only to compensate for differences in the cost of living but to encourage teachers to go to areas where local education authorities find it difficult to recruit the number and quality of teachers they need.

Mr. Madel: I agree with my hon. Friend. We all have our own roots. We were all born somewhere, as were our wives, and often family connections and a history of having lived or gone to school in a particular area create an obstacle to people moving and they want something really attractive to persuade them to move and teach in a particular area. How will we deal with that matter in practical terms? My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has hinted at that.
The Education Act 1986 gives greater powers to the governors and head teachers, and, above all, it gives greater powers on the question of budgets in schools. We now have a system where there will be an annual meeting of parents, governors and the head teacher and accounts

will be presented to the parents, the ratepayers and all those interested. Therefore, for the first time, people will have a statutory right to see the running cost of schools in a particular education authority. That will mean that as it gets under way in about two or three years—it is early days yet—and because there is a rising parental interest in education, people will say to the head, "You are spending so much on books and equipment, and yet in your report you refer to the difficulties involved in attracting someone to teach a specialist subject. Why do you not use new clause 11 of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill because it would help to attract someone at a different starting salary from what he or she would expect?"
I believe that this new clause meets that point. It gives head teachers the opportunity to respond positively to parents at that meeting, who might say, "For the next two years shift your costs slightly in favour of the salary rather than the books and equipment." There will not be a uniform rule. It will depend entirely on what type of school it is and the history of the school and it will particularly depend on whether there is a static or rising population in the area in which the school is situated. I think that the Government will welcome the new clause because it fits neatly in to the—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If there is a shortage, there will be a tendency for teachers to go round suggesting to heads that they are paid extra either to stay in a school or to be attracted to a school. As long as there is a shortage, all that will happen is that those groups of teachers will be paid extra and one will merely move the shortage round from one school to another.

Mr. Madel: I do not think that it will be like that. Not every school is in that position.

Mr. Dorrell: Surely the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) totally misunderstands the nature of the causes of shortages in specific subjects. There are shortages in subjects such as mathmatics and physics because people who have those skills are able to command higher salaries, such as the new clause will allow the local education authorities to pay, in professions outside the education service. It is precisely in order to redistribute the shortage in favour of education or to be able to allow the education service to compete with employers outside that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) tabled his new clause.

Mr. Madel: That is right. On many occasions my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has drawn attention to that. Conservative Members are trying to bring forward practical suggestions as to how the shortage could be overcome. We all visit the schools in our constitutency and we so often hear the head teacher say that he has lost a physics teacher to a certain firm or a mathematics teacher who has been tempted by another firm. I am trying to reduce the possibility of temptation with the new clause.

Mr. Park: I am trying to follow the logic of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I understand the difficulty about shortages of particular teachers in particular areas. However, on considering the suggestion in the new clause, I begin to wonder how it would work in practice. The hon. Gentleman says that it may be necessary to offer financial incentives to bring in a teacher in a shortage subject for


whatever reason, and to pay that teacher an enhanced salary. However, is it not a fact that the adverse conditions, whatever they may be, also apply to the existing staff? If one brings in a new person on an enhanced salary other members of staff will feel that they are already adversely affected and they will wonder why that new person is receiving preferential treatment.

The Chairman: Order. Please be brief.

Mr. Park: I am sorry, Mr. Walker. I have not intervened before and I hope that you will use your discretion.
Looking at the practical application, I think that the hon. Gentleman's new clause would bring one more element of discontent into schools.

Mr. Madel: I think not. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is not an easy problem. I am treating it seriously. It is as difficult as some of the industrial relations problems that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) has referred to many times when he has addressed the House.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the shortage of physics and maths teachers has now reached the proportions of a national crisis which is being debated by such organisations as the Royal Society and the Institute of Physics? There is a desperate need for some action. That is why I welcome new clause 11 and why I am glad that my hon. Friend is addressing himself to the problem.

Mr. Madel: My hon. Friend is right. If a shortage subject post is not filled, that runs contrary to the Education Act 1944, as it constitutes a failure to maintain a good education system. Although we can draw attention to difficulties that will occur if new clause 11 were added to the Bill, failure to do anything merely exacerbates the problem and puts the Government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science at risk of being taken to court. A few years ago, there was, I believe, a tremendous argument in Hereford and Worcester about why music had been dropped from the curriculum in a certain school. As far as I remember, the matter ended in the courts. We do not want that; we want a sensible Bill which goes some way to meet the problem.
The Education Act 1986 gives greater influence and power to governors. We hope that some governors will have experience of management training in industry. I look to some governors to attract people from industry to help bridge the gap. There are many people in industry who have done 20 or 25 years' hard work. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East knows how demanding a job in industry is and how demands increase each year. I am not for one fleeting second suggesting that teaching is an easy job, but it is for many people a welcome, refreshing and challenging change. New clause 11 could attract people from industry to work just as hard but in a different environment with a different set of challenges in what is often a more rewarding job.
The Government have indirectly added to the problems. I am not criticising, but drawing attention to the facts. Conservative Members know how popular the technical and vocational education initiative is, but it does not apply to every school. The Government never intended

that it could immediately, although an increasing number of schools are taking advantage of it. TVEI is starting to bring people in from industry. It is proving an attractive curriculum, and in schools where TVEI does not exist parents are asking whether some of the elements of TVEI can be included in the curriculum. That will continue as interest in the science curriculum increases.
New clause 11 would help the Government over a difficulty which might not have been seen at first. I support TVEI to the hilt and it is proving extremely popular, but it has some spin-offs which were not foreseen. Giving a head teacher the powers that I suggest would help overcome some of the problems. The Government are also introducing city technology colleges, which will have a science-based curriculum. They will also want to attract people from industry. Teachers in schools might be tempted to CTCs. Only time will tell how popular and successful they will be—education is a continuing experiment—but by creating another opportunity and another system of education which emphasises science and technology we could add to the shortage of certain teachers.

Mr. Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will affect what happens many years in the future? There have for some time been moves to introduce industry-based courses such as City and Guilds and the Royal Society of Arts so that there is greater integration between education and training. Teachers will want to bear that fact in mind.

Mr. Madel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. During the past seven years the Government have put in place a whole host of welcome new initiatives to improve the curriculum. As I have written in my notes, there may be more new initiatives and changes to the curriculum which have a bearing on the shortage of specialist teachers.
University requirements and curriculums often change, and that has a bearing on what is taught at school. The new advisory committee will take evidence from throughout the country. We should remember that we have a widely varying pattern of comprehensive education—different education authorities have different systems. The curriculum depends on the age range in a county. A middle school that runs from nine to 13 can widen the curriculum and bring in teachers on a higher salary because different subjects are taught, but middle schools that run from eight to 12 do not have an automatic right to the additional funding that a middle school which runs from nine to 13 enjoys. That variation would be covered by new clause 11, because it speaks only of "a school".
The advisory committee will also take evidence from the polytechnics and colleges of further education, which are tied in with the teaching profession. The number of students who attend polytechnics has rocketed since 1979. That is welcome.
12.15 pm
New clause 11 is yet another attempt to solve a difficult problem. We have spent many hours in many debates on it. The new clause is strengthened by the existence of the Education Act 1986 which gives greater powers to head teachers, governors and parents. I believe that, in a short time, there will be an enormous increase in parental interest in how schools are run, how money is spent, how the curriculum is taught and in the efforts that are made to ensure that the curriculum is thoroughly covered. That has always been Conservative policy—the broadest


curriculum properly carried out. New clause 11 is part of Conservative policy, and I therefore commend it to the Government.

Mr. Pike: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 168.
In clause 3(4)(a), the Government might have made a genuine attempt to deal with the problem that we are debating but, because of the haste with which they are trying to force the Bill through, they have not considered the matter properly or consulted adequately on it and if clause 3(4)(a) is allowed to stand we will create a bigger problem. Amendment No. 168 is important and should be carried.
One of the problems is attracting teachers to different areas. I know that people who live in the south, for example, believe that Lancashire is a county of long rows of blackened houses dominated by the dark satanic mills from the last century. It is not like that. Lancashire is a beautiful county and in my constituency one can see green hills from wherever one stands. However, when people look at jobs advertised in different schools in Burnley, if they have not seen that part of the country, they will have an image of it created by "Coronation Street", and which rest on images that they learned at school many years ago, when the position has changed considerably and the areas are different. I may have ideas about certain parts of the country that I have not visited that are very different from the reality.
It could be argued that, if this part of the clause were allowed to stand as it is, it could be used to attract people to apply for jobs in those areas. However, it would be difficult to define those areas. For instance, even in the county of Lancashire, there are wide differences between the Fylde coast and the section of north-east Lancashire and other parts of the country. I can see arguments about who will designate areas that are less attractive and proving a problem in attracting teachers to fill vacancies. That is an important problem, and it could cause bigger problems, if we were to move in the direction proposed by the Bill.
There is then the difference in the cost of living. We all recognise the problem of living in London and its immediate surroundings. The biggest difference is in housing. The cost of housing makes it difficult for people who are selling a house in the cheap area of London to be able to move into the London area to take up a job if they should so wish. Anyone moving to other parts of the country could be in an advantageous situation. The part of the country that I represent must be one of the cheapest areas for buying property. In Burnley, one can buy a semidetached house for £20,000, and would be paying a high price at that.

Mr. Tony Banks: There are other problems associated with living in London, such as transport costs. On average, Londoners have to travel much further from home to work than do people in other cities, where people are much closer to work, assuming that they are lucky enough to have some work.

Mr. Pike: Transport is the second problem in the London area, but that problem is created by the first problem, since so many people are forced into outlying areas because in the inner London area property is either not available or its price is too high for ordinary people.

Mr. Corbyn: In my constituency, somebody who has come to the area to start a teaching job and wishes to buy

a one-bedroom flat would have to spend between £50,000 and £60,000, which is impossible. As a result, teachers cannot come, and working class families are forced out by the market economy, which encourages the speculators to move in, destroying communities. Is this not an important point, which is coming home to roost in the teaching profession?

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is emphasising the point that I was making. The cost of housing is compounded by the cost of transport because people are forced to live outside of London. In rural areas, some people may have difficult journeys to travel to work. The deregulation of buses has aggravated the problem.
The clause attempts to deal with the problem of the cost of living but even within regions there are wide variations. We have already heard about the rates difference in the south-east, but there are other costs that vary considerably from one region to another, even in my region of the north-west. It would be difficult to know how to determine a high cost area, except in London, where the situation is more clearly defined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) drew on his experience as a teacher before coming to the House, and that was valuable in showing difficulties in other aspects of what this part of clause 3 would do. It would allow different rates of pay for people who specialise in subjects in which there are difficulties in recruiting teachers. He rightly spoke about the friction among teachers that would result from such a move. I have never been a teacher, but I know, as a school governor for a number of schools, the friction caused even when one genuinely used additional responsibility to give certain people a move up the scale. There tended to be some suspicions that it was not being used correctly, and one had to be careful to ensure that it was being correctly used and could be fully justified.
This move would cause considerable difficulties. When teachers work side by side with each other, they find it difficult to accept certain of their colleagues who, in their eyes, are working no harder, with no greater responsibility and are doing the same job but, because of a shortage of teachers in that category, are getting more pay.

Mr. Marlow: Why do teachers in public sector schools find it so difficult when teachers in private sector schools do not find it difficult, and people who work in industry and other businesses do not find it difficult?

Mr. Pike: That point is not relevant. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak in the debate, he will have the opportunity to make his own case. I have no wish to deal with schools in the private sector. That would open a different avenue.
While the intention of this part of the clause could be genuine, it would create more problems than we already have. We need to think much more about what we do because we have enough problems in education already. I am sure that even the Government do not wish to add to those problems. If this section of the Bill is allowed to stand, it will worsen the situation and affect the morale of teachers.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I regret that I must raise it, but it is a genuine point of order. Could you instigate inquiries to find out whether the access of


hon. Members to the House is being impeded by large numbers of people trying to gain access to the House through St. Stephen's entrance? The Norman porch entrance to the other place has been shut and large numbers of tourists wish to visit the House. I had a group of constituents, nursery nurse students from Bradford college, and they had to wait a long time to get into the House. Such things will occur more and more often as the Government try to force through more centralist measures of this sort—

The Chairman: Order. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order and we shall see whether there is any need to take it further. I remind hon. Members that we are in Committee and that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman are matters for the authorities of the House. I shall make sure that they are immediately drawn to the attention of the authorities so that we can see what action may be taken about this matter.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Walker. Could it be suggested that for debates like this, which I am sure will happen more and more, the Norman porch entrance to the other place be left open so that people who wish to tour the House can do so without causing undue congestion? Such congestion occurred this morning, and large numbers of people who wished to listen to the proceedings in Committee were not facilitated because only one entrance to the Palace was open.

The Chairman: I again remind hon. Members that they are in Committee. I am the Chairman of the Committee and, as such, I do not have authority to deal with these matters. As I have said, I shall make sure that the matters are drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities and that any remedial steps which can be taken are taken.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I listened to the point of order by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I have just come in through the entrance that he spoke about and found it entirely clear. The hon. Gentleman has raised an entirely bogus point of order.

The Chairman: Order. We must recognise that we are hon. Members and that that sort of remark does not help our proceedings.

Mr. Flannery: A long time ago, many of us said that this Bill would cause chaos, and it is already doing so in Committee. The Bill is a minefield and clause 3 is confusion worse confounded. I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 168 and 169. Clause 3(4) says:
An order may as regards remuneration—

 (a) make different provisions for different cases, including different provision for different areas".
What does that mean? How in heaven's name will it work? We tried to do things like this in the past and ended up in a mess, even though we had the noblest of intentions. For a long time, we have had to face the London allowance as best we could, but we still do not know what to do about it. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) said that the rates in Cleveland were higher than anywhere else. According to him, anybody working in Cleveland would be in considerable difficulty.
Hon. Members will recall the Plowden report on primary education. That report considered the east ends and other difficult areas of the great cities and recommended an allowance to everybody who taught in

schools in such areas. We all thought that was a splendid idea. I told that to a conference of teachers and arranged such a scheme with a group of teachers in Sheffield. No sooner had we tried the scheme and found out how good it was than people from all over the city complained bitterly that their areas were far worse than some of the areas to which we had given the allowance. Some of the areas complained about were next to areas that received the allowance and we had a constant demarcation line. That scheme proved to be a nuisance, although at the time we had the noblest of intentions.
The part of the clause which says "make different provision for different cases" prompted the tabling of amendment No. 168, to leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
not provide for other than a system of remuneration to be consistently applied throughout England and Wales.
We are to have a system under which people in Yorkshire will be able to negotiate—which this Bill hardly allows—in that area. What sort of pressures for negotiation will one area have that another area does not have? Is it possible that the councils or the unions in one area might be stronger than councils or the unions in other areas? Will negotiation be allowed if the pressure is strong enough, and will teachers in those areas get more money than they would get in another area? Matters like that persuaded us to table this sensible amendment.
Amendment No. 169 seeks to remove subsection 3(1) (a). If accepted, it would avoid all this confusion. Can the Minister explain why there will be negotiations about different amounts of money for people in different areas?
New clause 11 was referred to by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). I know that he spoke to it with complete integrity, because I have worked with him for a long time and know him well, but it is dangerous to try to introduce such a clause, no matter how noble the motive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) spoke about a science or mathematics department that needed three maths teachers. Let us suppose that two are available and the third must be taken from industry. One is then faced with the problem, specified by my hon. Friend, that having spent years in industry and being almost at the top of his profession with a good salary, that candidate for the teaching post can hardly be expected to begin at the bottom. If he is started high up on the salary scale, what happens to the other two teachers? Have they not a right to the same salary as the third teacher? By trying to remedy the problem, real trouble will be caused in the school.
This new clause has so many anomalies and suggestions for setting things right that it is a positive minefield. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) came into the Committee, intervened two or three times, and then went out. He told us about private schools and said that they could solve these problems. What nonsense! This Bill has all the hallmarks of having been drafted by people educated in private schools and in grammar and public schools. The only thing they know about the state system is how to destroy it. That is what will happen.
I should like the Minister to explain some of the convoluted points made in the debate. I should like him to explain subsection (4) and reply to my query about teachers from industry. I know that many people enter teaching and that not all of them will come from industry,


but those are the people that I have mentioned because their employment as teachers will give rise to great dangers.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will the Minister assure the Committee that clause 3(1)(a) is not intended to pave the way for differential regional wage scales? I am not talking about allowances. Clearly, there must be a cost-of-living allowance in areas such as London. I am no great supporter of national wage bargaining. It is one of the worst things with which we have been landed. But if we do away with national wage bargaining, we should do it by the front door, not the back door. We should not use the Bill as a way of eroding wage bargaining. I shall be unhappy if the Bill ensures that Wales gets second-class teachers with second-class salaries. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Bill will not discriminate between regions, but will make provision for inner cities areas where there is a special need to attract teachers to shortage subjects?

Mrs. Rumbold: The discussion on the first amendment suggested that Opposition Members—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) admitted this—are not addicted to the principle of London weighting. The hon. Gentleman said that there had to be a London weighting, but he was not fond of the idea of it. Had the matter been left to him, he would not have subscribed to it. I understand what he said. I have heard the argument many times. London teachers would not be happy if it were suggested that they should not have London weighting.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I did not suggest anything of the sort. I suggested that if we could go back to the point at which the matter started, which perhaps led to the escalation of house prices in the area, we might not have wished to go along that path. Once there is London weighting in schools and in other occupations, I accept that it will be impossible to get rid of it.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman accepts that it will be difficult to get rid of it. Until about 1945 there were different salary scales for different areas within London attracting a higher rate. Territorial differences have been applied. There was a scale 1 for purely rural areas—I am talking about a different London from the London that we know today. There was a scale 2 for partly rural areas. Perhaps my constituency would have been a partly rural area then. There was a scale for partly urban areas, and scale 3 for industrial areas, or partly urban and partly industrial areas. There was scale 4 for London. In 1945, those scales differentiating between various parts of the country were abolished, but teachers in the London county council and certain areas adjoining London received the London area allowance. The allowance was comprised of two rates. The higher rate applied either when the person attained the age of 37 years or on the completion of 16 years' service in the London area, whichever was the earlier. These arrangements continued until 1965.
Before then, the only recorded significant change was the extension of the London area to include parts of Kent, Essex, Surrey and Hertfordshire which fell within the metropolitan police district. In 1965, the two rates were abolished and replaced by one rate. In 1974, there was a special pay board on London allowances. As a result, three

rates of London allowance were established, and they are still in existence. From 1 March 1974, teachers in ILEA and certain outer London boroughs—Brent, Barking, Haringey, Ealing, Merton and Newham—received the highest rate. Outer London areas, including those adjacent to London, received a lower allowance. A new fringe allowance was established for selected parts of the home counties that never before had attracted London weighting.

Mr. Corbyn: I am sure that the hon. Lady listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Does she accept that house prices in London are high, particularly for young teachers? It is impossible for young teachers to buy a house in virtually any borough in London. Because of the pressure on public sector housing, it is almost impossible to get public sector housing, either. They must travel a long way or we must face a serious shortage of teachers in many inner urban areas, such as the one that I represent. I should imagine that the same problem applies in the Minister's own constituency.

Mrs. Rumbold: That is a powerful argument for the maintenance of the London weighting. It is one of the obvious reasons why we need the provision as drafted in the Bill. There is a provision for different cases. This will allow us to continue the higher rate of pay in special schools and social priority allowances for the inner cities. It is an important method of ensuring that there are teachers in schools that are in serious need of an extended number of teachers to help with their special deprivations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that.
It is unfortunate that Opposition Members are obsessed with paying everyone the same rate. It would create difficulties if we were to apply their argument to this differentiation. We seem to agree that there are special needs because of the price of houses and the price of housing generally within the south-eastern area. I do not include only London, although I accept that London housing is highly priced. People in all sorts of professions in my constituency have great difficulty in buying houses. In the south-east generally, the price of houses is different. Therefore, the London weighting is an important—though not perhaps great—incentive to teachers to remain within London.
The hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) talked about regional differences. They were concerned about any proposition that there could be different regional pay. Their argument was that the proposed pay structure that should be accepted included sufficient rewards for classroom teachers and there was no need for any incentives for shortage teachers or shortage skills, and no need to get teachers to go into difficult posts by having different scales because it would create difficulties.
The Government's argument is the reverse. It is important that individual head teachers can offer special rewards and that individual authorities can examine the possibility of attracting people to areas in which they can pay for shortage teachers or shortage skills that they believe are important, and also that they can get good teachers to take up difficult posts either in inner city areas or in rural areas. In rural areas, it can be just as easy, for different reasons, to have deprivation and just as easy to


find it difficult to attract people to work in rural areas. It is important that one should not rule out the possibility of there being some differentials, incentives and some special posts within the structure of the salary scales.
The House has not yet decided the issue of regional pay. I urge Opposition Members not to make too many assumptions about regional pay but to have an open mind. Recruitment problems differ from one part of the country to another. The hon. Member for Burnley reminded us about how beautiful his home county of Lancashire is. That is quite true. I have associations with Yorkshire people who claim that Yorkshire is marginally more beautiful. The hon. Member for Hillsborough will agree that Yorkshire has marginal attractions over the county of Lancashire. These are matters about which all hon. Members have different opinions. I do not wish to extend that argument. It might divide the Committee in a different way from the customary one. There is clearly a case for asking the advisory committee to consider the possibility of some regional pay differences. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) that in no circumstances would we seek to make regional differences in such a way as to deprive one area to benefit another, but there may be good reasons for providing enhanced remuneration to attract people with shortage skills to a particular area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, Southwest (Mr. Madel) referred specifically to recruiting problems and the need to give head teachers discretion to pay salaries higher than the prescribed starting salary to staff teaching shortage subjects. He made some cogent and powerful points. We recognise the need to recruit staff to teach shortage subjects such as mathematics, physics and craft and technical design. As I have said, our proposals allow for an increase in salary and an expansion in a number of incentive posts.
This is the matter of principle that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tried to explain to local authority employers and to individual unions. He feels very strongly about this because he believes that it is essential to have a number of incentive posts available to teachers. He believes that this will allow good quality teachers, including those with specialist skills that are in short supply, to be properly rewarded and motivated. We certainly do not rule out the idea of appointing teachers at a higher starting salary to attract people to the profession, but I think that it would be inadvisable for the House to lay that down prescriptively in the Bill. Again, I think that it would be preferable to ask the advisory committee to consider the matter. I accept, too, that the technical and vocational education initiative and the city technology colleges might also use the advisory committee.
I hope that I have managed to cover many of the points raised in the debate and to put the Government's view. Much of what has been said today should be noted and some will certainly be taken on board by the advisory committee, but I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Mr. Freud: I shall be very brief. I have just a few points to make. I have never felt it important to occupy time simply because I wanted to make a point. I have listened to most of the debate, and I apologise to the few hon. Members whose speeches I did not hear. It is totally

unacceptable for central Government to impose different pay scales for different areas on the local education authorities. I take a fairly relaxed view of a local authority coming to an agreement with a teacher within a pay scale, but I would not wish the advisory committee to be involved in that. There is a danger that Conservative councils, which undervalue teachers, might pay them too little while certain irresponsible Left-wing councils might pay them too much. Provided that the pay scale was agreed within the top and bottom guidelines, I think that alliance Members would be content to allow local education authorities to negotiate with teachers.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Minister has given substance to our fears that there will be major demarcation problems between one area and another and between one subject and another. It is therefore important that we register our opposition to the proposals in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 220.

Division No. 35]
[12.54 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Freud, Clement


Alton, David
Garrett, W. E.


Anderson, Donald
Godman, Dr Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashdown, Paddy
Gould, Bryan


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hancock, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hardy, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A J.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bermingham, Gerald
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bidwell, Sydney
Howells, Geraint


Blair, Anthony
Hoyle, Douglas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Janner, Hon Greville


Caborn, Richard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lambie, David


Clay, Robert
Lamond, James


Clelland, David Gordon
Leadbitter, Ted


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Leighton, Ronald


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Conlan, Bernard
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbyn, Jeremy
McCartney, Hugh


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Craigen, J. M.
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mallon, Seamus


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dobson, Frank
Martin, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Maxton, John


Dubs, Alfred
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eadie, Alex
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fisher, Mark
O'Brien, William


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foster, Derek
Park, George


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie






Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Penhaligon, David
Strang, Gavin


Pike, Peter
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Redmond, Martin
Torney, Tom


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wareing, Robert


Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Welsh, Michael


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Winnick, David


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. James Hamilton and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Don Dixon.


Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Aitken, Jonathan
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alexander, Richard
Forman, Nigel


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ancram, Michael
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Franks, Cecil


Baldry, Tony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Galley, Roy


Benyon, William
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Greenway, Harry


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Brinton, Tim
Harris, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Colvin, Michael
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Corrie, John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dicks, Terry
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Key, Robert


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dunn, Robert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knowles, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Knox, David


Fallon, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Farr, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Favell, Anthony
Latham, Michael





Lawler, Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lester, Jim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rost, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Macfarlane, Neil
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Maclean, David John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shersby, Michael


Madel, David
Silvester, Fred


Major, John
Sims, Roger


Malins, Humfrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marland, Paul
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Antony
Spencer, Derek


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nicholls, Patrick
Trippier, David


Norris, Steven
Trotter, Neville


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Portillo, Michael
Wheeler, John


Powley, John
Whitfield, John


Price, Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Raffan, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Rathbone, Tim
Woodcock, Michael


Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tellers for the Noes:


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Mr. David Lightbown and


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, No. 183, in page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Radice.]

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: I did not realise that we would reach clause 4 so quickly. We in the Labour party are very keen on clause IV, but not in respect of the Bill.
The curious wording of clause 4 does not make it clear what its impact will be on rate-capped local authorities. I represent the inner-London constituency of Islington, North, which comes within the Inner London education


authority. Today, ILEA is the largest education authority in Britain, and probably in western Europe. It employs the largest number of teachers and has one of the best records on spending per pupil in the country. However, that authority has been singled out for especially vindictive treatment by the Government. Apart from money for further education, the authority has received no Government grant since 1980.
Therefore, it is fallacious for the Secretary of State to claim that any agreement reached between the local authority employers and the teachers' unions, as has happened on this occasion, is partly his responsibility. On numerous occasions it has been abundantly clear that the Secretary of State is not prepared to fund ILEA, despite all the educational problems and the multiple deprivation of inner-city areas.
The Government should tell us how the clause will affect any settlement that is reached between the local authority employers and the teachers' trade union representatives, or any settlement imposed on them by the Government. If the Government are to be consistent in claiming an even-handed approach towards education problems throughout Britain, they should recognise that ILEA has special educational needs. They should recognise also that is has tried hard to provide a decent standard of education, and that it has achieved a great deal, despite the smear tactics that have been used against it by the Murdoch empire, and despite the regular attacks mounted on it by Ministers.
We need to know exactly what the Government's response will be if a settlement is now imposed in the teachers' dispute as looks likely, because the Tory hordes have returned after their night out. In fact, ILEA has been knee-capped and has been hit harder than any of the borough councils that have been rate-capped.
I could speak at enormous length about ILEA'S problems, but I do not want to detain the House. Nevertheless, the Government should understand what they are doing to education in Inner London. I believe that ILEA has played a good and positive role in furthering innovative education in Britain, and that that has been recognised by education authorities throughout the country. Indeed, ILEA is recognised as a pioneer in the school meals service, in nursery schools and classes, in play centres and junior clubs, in youth centres, adult education, further and higher education, polytechnics, media resources, language training and many other areas. It is thus recognised as an advanced authority.
Moreover, because of the multi-ethnic nature of London's society, it has willingly spread linguistic training throughout London. I do not call that a problem, as it is not one. It is part of the rich pattern of London life that there are so many people who speak different languages. Obviously, ILEA had to spend a lot of money on all those things. Consequently, it has been singled out for special treatment. Over the years, the Government have attempted to break up ILEA. I have been party to many campaigns to defend it in my capacity as a NUPE organiser in the past, and as someone who is concerned about education in inner London. For all those pluses the Government have singled out ILEA for special and vindictive treatment.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have actively pursued a hostile political campaign against ILEA? Does he recall that during the discussions on the Local Government Bill 1985, it was originally proposed that ILEA should be broken up?

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, indeed I do. Since its inception, ILEA has been under constant threat from this Government and previous Conservative Governments. As my hon. Friend has said, they did not like the fact that London county council was a progressive education authority. Since the establishment of the GLC and ILEA, and since the local government re-organisation of 1963, Conservative Governments have been consistently opposed to ILEA. People in County hall, who have been trying to plan education for Inner London, have always had to look over their shoulders at the threat implied in breaking up ILEA into a series of too-small, unmanageable and educationally unsound organisations.

Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend has highlighted the financial problems that are unique to ILEA. Perhaps he might care to reflect for a moment on the additional problems that ILEA will face if the London residuary body insists on kicking it out of county hall. I remind my hon. Friend that it was the ILEA boroughs which then made up London county council that paid for county hall out of London rates. Consequently, ILEA is being told that if it wants to stay in county hall, it must buy back its own property. What does my hon. Friend think of that outrageous situation?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend's intervention has a great deal to do with the Bill. It is outrageous to suggest that ILEA should be forced to leave county hall. County hall was built and paid for by the people of London. The GLC was destroyed against the wishes of the people of London, but it will come back and it will be stronger than ever. Obviously, that building is part of London life and the London scene—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the provisions of the Bill, and should not go over old history.

Mr. Corby: I understand that, so I shall relate my remarks to the financial problems of ILEA in respect of its occupation of county hall. The Government have—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the provisions of the Bill, and should not deal with the occupation of county hall.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps I can say that ILEA has severe financial problems that are associated with the Bill and with the way in which the Government have treated it. Those problems have been exacerbated by the Government's obsession with throwing ILEA out of county hall, thus putting increased expenditure on that education authority, when it would rather spend that money on taking care of its children.
The agreement reached in Nottingham was welcomed by ILEA as a major step forward in defining the professional requirements of teachers and in setting a long-term pay structure that is just and attractive. The authority employs 17,200 full-time equivalent teachers in inner London. Its current practice conforms with the agreement on class sizes, which provides for an overall maximum


planned class size of 33 by 1 September 1987, subject to the availability of qualified teachers and space. In ILEA, the average effective class sizes are 20·4 for primary schools and 18·2 for secondary schools. Therefore, ILEA already falls very much within the terms of that Nottingham agreement. The same is true in relation to cover, and ILEA fully accepts what has been put forward with regard to appraisal in that agreement.
Moreover, ILEA welcomes the equal opportunities content of the agreement, and has been singled out for a particularly vindictive attack by the Government because of its progress in equal opportunities training, educational methods and employment practices. As has been said, unless the financial relationship between local and central Government is clarified and the Government accept the idea of local democracy, the Bill will create only further problems for ILEA in particular, and for other education authorities too. The clause, however, appears to make that financial relationship even more complicated and local democracy an even more remote prospect.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reply to the debate. On 5 November the leader of ILEA, Frances Morrell, sent a letter. I should like to know what answer she is being given on this important matter. The people of London want to improve their education system. They supported the teachers in large numbers during the pay dispute. There were many petitions, demonstrations, marches and rallies. In my constituency, the local people were not blaming the teachers for that dispute, but were putting the blame where it belongs, on the Government. Ministers may find it a little hard to understand that.
However, I hope that the Minister will at least give us some hope that the financial vindictiveness that has been shown towards ILEA will be ended, along with the rate-capping of that authority. Moreover, I hope that he will agree to introduce amending legislation that will put ILEA on the same footing as other education authorities, and that will release it from the especially vindictive position that was sorted out for it at the time of the GLC's abolition and the consequent legislation affecting ILEA.

Mr. Tony Banks: I shall be brief. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) wanted to use this debate to draw the attention of the Committee to the unique financial problems facing ILEA. I do not believe that the Minister is likely to give the assurances that my hon. Friend sought. Indeed, for us to believe that he would do so, we would also have to believe passionately in Father Christmas. Nevertheless, I hope that Ministers will at last show that they are aware of the problems facing ILEA.
Unlike any other authority, in the absence of block grant, ILEA funds 100 per cent. of the pay bill for inner London teachers. Consequently, it feels doubly deprived as a result of the Bill.
I shall not go into all the reasons for that position, but we know that the Secretary of State realises that ILEA will face enormous problems. In answer to questions on his statement he said:
The one local authority that could be in trouble this year is ILEA because it is not in receipt of block grants."—[Official Report, 30 October 1986; Vol. 103. c. 470–1.]
An additional bill will be faced by all education authorities, whatever settlement is finally reached, but ILEA ratepayers will face the largest bill of all ratepayers in Britain because ILEA is the largest education authority and will receive none of the Government's additional

block grant. At present it appears that this additional grant to be paid by the Government will go to other local authorities, most of which are not education authorities, so face none of the extra costs.
That seems on the face of it patently absurd because the additional money that Ministers will make available for an educational settlements, imposed, agreed or whatever could end up going to authorities with no educational responsibilities. Even in his wildest moments the Minister could not possibly wish to see that happen. We hope that when he replies he will tell us what special arrangements will be made for ILEA because of its unique and special problems.

Mr. Fisher: When the Minister replies will he mention two further problems in addition to the problems on ILEA that were well laid out by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)?
Will the Minister confirm that if the money is paid through the block grant some of the increase will inevitably go to non-education authorities? That strikes me as inevitable by the very nature of block grant. Will the Minister confirm that that is an inevitable consequence? I am sure that he will agree that that is far from satisfactory, especially when he puts such emphasis on the tightness of the financial arrangements and the desire not to waste money. I am sure that he will agree that it would be entirely unsatisfactory, if money paid under these provisions through the block grant went to non-education authorities.
My next point is even more serious. Will the Minister make it clear how the Government will pay? Local authorities inevitably fear that the Government will reflect in the grant a particular proportion of the cost of a pay settlement which the Secretary of State may impose. That would mean that the Government could limit their contribution to a specified number of staff employed. The Minister will acknowledge that the DES figures for the correct number of staff employed are considerably lower for a variety of complicated reasons than the number of staff that are employed. A position could easily arise in which the increased money was paid through the block grant for a specified number of employed staff which was lower than the number of staff that an authority had. That is possible and likely. Then the authority — if the Minister is still with me on this crucial point — which discovered that it was being given money for a specified number of staff which was less than the number of staff that it had in place in schools would be faced with the choice of varying its contracts, redeploying or sacking staff, or diverting funds from other activities on to staff costs. I am sure that the Minister would agree that all of those things are undesirable. I hope that they are unintentional.
I would be interested to know if I have misinterpreted those points about the block grant. An increase will inevitably go to some education authorities, and the difference between the specified number of staff and the actual number of staff employed, if the Secretary of State chooses to make that specification in his increase, is a serious problem. Local authorities should be aware of exactly what the Government intend to do.

Mr. Freud: I am anxious about the advice that we are given in the notes on clauses where it states:


The main expense would be payments to members of the Advisory Committee and this will be largely offset by the disbandment of the previous Burnham committees.
The phrase "largely offset" clearly means that the pay for the Advisory committee will be more than the money which is currently spent on the Burnham committees. That has grave implications. The Minister owes it to the House to explain what remuneration he has in mind for the members and for the secretariat of the committee. The expenditure on Burnham is very considerable. I would think that the travelling costs alone, apart from the secretariat and the papers that are published, would be infinitely greater than the costs that one could envisage for a committee of five to nine men doing good work.

Mr. Corbyn: And women.

Mr. Freud: Women and, possibly, young people. As people do good work they are steadily underpaid. Hon. Members know how insistent we on the Opposition Benches are to give authority to people who may not necessarily have reached the age at which the Secretary of State thinks them fit to sit on Committees.
I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply because he owes it to the House to go into this at least in some detail.

Mr. Dunn: The clause is about the expenses of running an advisory committee, as the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) confirmed. It has nothing to do with the level of rate support grant paid under the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Act 1980. Hon. Members know that the level of rate support grant is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine.
On the Burnham committee and the costs of servicing the advisory committee, no decision has yet been taken on the payment of committee members. Members of pay review bodies have their expenses paid, but do not receive remuneration. However, we shall consider whether the advisory committee members should receive remuneration.
With regard to the costs of the Burnham committee—there are direct costs and indirect costs in the sense that some costs are not easy to quantify and put on the table—the direct cost of the Burnham meetings is about £20,000 a year. That covers a small allowance paid to the chairman together with the costs of the hire of the meeting rooms refreshments and the production of verbatim reports. But clearly the overall cost of the Burnham machinery is much greater than that figure when the costs of salaries, allowances and expenses of those attending Burnham meetings are also included.
Schedule 1 provides that the Secretary of State—

Mr. Freud: Is the Minister saying that these provisions will save money or cost more? It sounds as if there will be a considerable saving, which is the first good thing we have heard from the Conservative party.

Mr. Dunn: As I have just outlined, we have yet to take a number of decisions on whether the Department of Education and Science or other Government agencies will finance the secretariat. There are costs involved, but my view in trying to equate the gain made by the elimination of Burnham with the costs of the secretariat is that the cost

will probably be a little less or the same. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when a figure is more clearly available to us.
The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—with great ingenuity—raised the questions of ILEA, county hall, pupil-teacher ratios, staffing, equipment, books and a whole range of ILEA activities which do not necessarily fall within the particular ambit of this debate. However, because it is the season of good will, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West said—although I do not think that I yet resemble Father Christmas—I would like to engage the House in a debate on ILEA.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister would have a job climbing up and down the chimneys, would he not?

Mr. Dunn: Certainly, most modern houses do not have chimneys. To return to the subject, a debate on ILEA includes what it does, how it does it, what expenditure levels it follows and how it could do better.
The hon. Member for Islington, North, said that the Government were being harsh and vindictive in their financial treatment of ILEA. Perhaps the political debate is a further dimension. I am happy to engage in debate on ILEA, what it does and how it does it at any time, while occasionally paying appropriate credit and tribute to some of the good work that it has done. I will not deny that it has done good work in recent years and that it has extremely good officers who have probably kept the authority under better control than might have been the case.
The fact that ILEA receives no block grant under the present rate support grant system in no sense implies that it is being singled out for harsh treatment. It is treated in the same way as all other authorities. As the House will know, one significant reason why ILEA receives no block grant is that it benefits from the high rateable value of the inner London area. In addition, its expenditure policies are such that it takes them above the line for Government support.
Opposition Members and I will always differ sharply on how and what we see the work, function and role of ILEA. I believe that expenditure and savings can be made without detriment to the education provision for young people of inner London. I know that both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken with great ingenuity will disagree with me. There can be savings on plant, privatisation of services, supernumerary teachers who are unallocated to jobs and exist on the books, and in many other areas.

Mr. Corbyn: I am unclear whether the Minister is prepared to say now that the Government will fund the teachers' pay increase for ILEA. It is the only education authority in England and Wales that under the present arrangements would stand to receive no central Government funding whatever for the increases in teachers' pay, be they the Nottingham increases or increases which the Minister may try to impose this legislation.

Mr. Dunn: The answer is plain. So long as ILEA continues to behave as it does, it will not receive grant. The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter which we have received from the leader of the authority, but it would be injudicious of me to reveal the reply at this stage — I


mean no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman. It will be replied to and Mrs. Morrell will be the first to receive the reply. That is only fair and courteous.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will realise that money is given for a specified number of staff because grant is related to the overall assessed need to spend on an authority. Our intention would be to direct the extra grant to local education authorities by increasing the education GRE.
This debate is about the money to be made available to cover expenses attributable to the provisions of the Bill, if it becomes an Act. It is a standard provision and does not obviate the need for the money to be voted at the appropriate time. The main expense envisaged is payment to members of the advisory committee which will be largely off-set by the disbandment of the previous Burnham committees. Therefore, I welcome the inclusion of clause 4 in the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee Divided: Ayes 208, Noes 133.

Division No. 36]
[1.34 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fallon, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Farr, Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Favell, Anthony


Amess, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ancram, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Ashby, David
Forman, Nigel


Aspinwall, Jack
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Benyon, William
Gale, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Galley, Roy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brinton, Tim
Hannam, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holt, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cope, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Corrie, John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dicks, Terry
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Robert
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lang, Ian


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Latham, Michael





Lawler, Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lester, Jim
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macfarlane, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Maclean, David John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


Madel, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Major, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Spencer, Derek


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marlow, Antony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neale, Gerrard
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trippier, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pawsey, James
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Ward, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Watts, John


Portillo, Michael
Whitfield, John


Powley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Winterton, Nicholas


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Woodcock, Michael


Rathbone, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Francis Maude and


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. David Lightbown.




NOES


Alton, David
Conlan, Bernard


Anderson, Donald
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbett, Robin


Ashdown, Paddy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Craigen, J. M.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Beith, A. J.
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dobson, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Dormand, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Dubs, Alfred


Blair, Anthony
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Bruce, Malcolm
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Cartwright, John
Fisher, Mark


Clay, Robert
Flannery, Martin


Clelland, David Gordon
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Foster, Derek


Coleman, Donald
Foulkes, George






Freeson, Rt Ron Reginald
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Freud, Clement
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, W. E.
Park, George


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Gould, Bryan
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Pendry, Tom


Hancock, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pike, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Raynsford, Nick


Howells, Geraint
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Janner, Hon Greville
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leighton, Ronald
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Snape, Peter


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


McTaggart, Robert
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mallon, Seamus
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tinn, James


Martin, Michael
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wareing, Robert


Michie, William
Weetch, Ken


Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Michael


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Nellist, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr Don Dixon and


O'Brien, William
Mr. James Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

DURATION OF ACT

Mr. Radice: I beg to move amendment No. 202, in page 3, line 30, leave out '1990' and insert '1989'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 203, in page 3, line 30, leave out '1990' and insert '1987'.
No. 204, in page 3, line 30, leave out from '1990' to end of line 38.
No. 205, in page 3, line 31, at end insert
'or unless terminated by an order made by the Secretary of State before that date'.
No. 207, in page 3, line 38, at end insert
'or shall cease to have effect after such period of notice as he sees fit'.

Mr. Radice: We have discussed the points covered by these amendments on many occasions throughout yesterday and today, or is it tomorrow and the day before yesterday—I cannot quite remember.
I should like to ask the Minister two questions on the definition of interim. When is interim, interim? Most fair

minded people would not consider a three-year period—four years if we take account of the retrospective element—to be interim. Most people would regard that as almost permanent. The Government must face that issue. My second question is very simple. What do the Government envisage will happen after 1990? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions.

Mr. Dunn: I was very grateful for the advance notice given by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), in his usual courteous way, of the two questions that he intended to raise. There are temporary civil servants who are temporary civil servants for all their working lives. In the context of the notion of interim, we are concerned to have the notion of interim status applying until 1990. What happens thereafter is a matter for consultation and debate. We will consider proposals as they are made.

Mr. Radice: What about speculation?

Mr. Dunn: There is bound to be much speculation. The Opposition indulge in that all the time, especially on the date of parliamentary elections, defence and such matters. However, we intend to consult very carefully about the engine that will replace the clapped-out Burnham vehicle.

Mr. Radice: The Minister has said that the Government will consult very carefully about the engine to replace Burnham. However, the fact is we are discussing a Bill about which there has been no consultation whatsoever.

Mr. Fisher: Why the sudden conversion?

Mr. Dunn: I do not feel part of the debate that is taking place on the Opposition Front Bench. However, I am determined to say that of course we shall have careful consultations. Representations will be made by individuals, institutions and political parties. No doubt by 1990, the hon. Member for Durham, North will, like me, be four years older but he will still be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and giving me advice and I shall listen carefully. Not all the hon. Gentleman's ideas are completely bad. We shall consult and replace Burnham with a new engine.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about a new engine driver?

Mr. Dunn: If the new engine driver is anything like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), he will have to take several tests before he is qualified.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Fisher: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in page 3, line 33, after 'order', insert
'a draft of which has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we shall take amendment No. 209 in page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Fisher: As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said in speaking to the last group of amendments, we have discussed at length in Committee the powers of the Secretary of State, but we have not discussed at great length the proceedings to be followed when the Secretary of State makes decisions on the advice of the new advisory committee and brings them before the House. The Secretary of State tried to say that the procedures laid down in the Bill were democratic and constitutional enhancements. He tried to make the case


that the House of Commons would have greater powers of scrutiny and control. For all his ingenious arguments, smiles and charm, he did not make that case successfully. His tongue was planted firmly in both cheeks, if that is possible. That might be possible for this Secretary of State. Anything is possible in view of the way in which he has conducted the debate.
Amendments Nos. 206 and 209 concern the form in which the measures to be introduced by the Secretary of State should be presented. In amendment No. 206, we suggest that, instead of an order being laid before the House, there should be
a draft…which has been laid before and approved by a resolution by each House of Parliament".
That is a normal procedure which you, Mr. Armstrong, the Under-Secretary of State and even the Secretary of State understand, although the Bill suggests that the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity to parliamentary procedure, or at least to the niceties of democratic political management, is sadly lacking. Even he should understand that an affirmative resolution approved by each House of Parliament is a normal and correct procedure. It would be interesting to hear the Under-Secretary of State explain to the Committee why the House of Commons should not be allowed to affirm a draft order rather than have a statutory instrument laid before it. As the Under-Secretary of State understands full well, the latter is a very different form of scrutiny and effectively puts all control in the hands of the Secretary of State.
The burden of our case in Committee has been that the Secretary of State has been taking unto himself extraordinary, unnecessary and undesirable powers in relation to trade unions and local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman said in a different context last weekend in a widely reported speech on the curriculum that he wanted to take the curriculum to Elizabeth house or its successor in the Department. In this legislation, power will be centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State, and I hope that teachers, local authorities and parents understand that.
By presenting orders to the House of Commons in this way the Secretary of State will further centralise power in his hands. I hope that Conservative Members who are parliamentarians, who have respect for the House of Commons and who believe that we all have a duty to our constituents to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny will agree that the system of affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament is an appropriate one in this case.

Mr. Marlow: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has done with the Bill. I do not know whether he has lost it, has turned it upside down, cannot read it or cannot understand it. The Bill refers to an order. If there is an order, there will be parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman seems to have mislaid the Bill.

Mr. Fisher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has the amendments in front of him. We commend amendment No. 206 to him. It says that a draft should be
laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament".
If the hon. Gentleman feels that that is an inferior and less secure way for Parliament to scrutinise the activities of the Secretary of State than that provided in the Bill, by all means let him make his own contribution. I think that he would be hard put to say that our proposal in amendment No. 206 is not a better way for Parliament to proceed. This

is not a party political point. Irrespective of which party is in power, it is better for the Government's actions to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Will the Under-Secretary of State respond to my point and explain how the procedures in the Bill are superior to those proposed in our amendment?

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Cental (Mr. Fisher) for the chance to comment on the amendments to clause 5. The clause provides for the advisory committee to have a limited life. The interim arrangements are due to expire on 31 March 1990, unless renewed by an order subject to negative resolution procedure. Renewal may be for a period of one year at a time.
Amendment No. 206 converts the procedure for the extension of the legislation into an affirmative resolution. That was made quite clear. There may well be an occasion when an extension of the legislation for one year is deemed to be uncontroversial, in which case it would perhaps take up Parliament's time to debate it. If it were deemed to be controversial, as might be the case with Labour Members, no doubt it would be prayed against, so Parliament would debate it anyway. I think that I am satisfied with that provision.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is sad that the Government do not appreciate the difference between affirmative and negative resolution orders and their considerable implications for debate in the House of Commons. Affirmative resolution orders must be debated, although this does not have to take up more than a few seconds. There are examples of affirmative orders which involve no controversy. They are considered at 10 o'clock and are passed on the nod. This means that an hon. Member has the opportunity to debate the matter, whether as an individual member of a political party who supports the order, as a member of that party who, on that occasion, disagrees with the party's view, or as an individual. Hon. Members may want to discuss the order although not necessarily to vote against it. Affirmative orders can be debated for an hour and a half in Committee.
The difficulty is that negative resolution orders must be prayed against, which involves lobbying through the usual channels. A Front-Bench spokesman has a good chance of getting an early debate on the order as a result of such lobbying. But a Back Bencher may not necessarily win an easy passage for the order, if the usual channels are not especially sympathetic to the idea of a debate. There are occasions when one has to make oneself particularly awkward to get such a debate.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has the hon. Gentleman ever introduced a negative order?

Mr. Bennett: I have pursued the issue of exemptions for gipsy caravan sites. On one occasion, there was quite a cosy arrangement between the two Front Benches that one of the orders should be passed without debate. Getting a debate entailed making quite a nuisance of oneself.
There is a further problem with a prayer. If the prayer is tabled for consideration at 10 o'clock, the debate is entitled to continue until 11.30 pm. But if there is a vote on the busines that is due to conclude at 10'clock, time for the debate on the prayer is reduced, and there may be less than an hour's debate on it. If, as often happens, the two Front Bench spokesmen speak for longer than 20 minutes


each, hon. Members do not have much time to debate the prayer. At least, with an affirmative order, we are guaranteed an hour and a half debate. There seems to be a considerable advantage in having affirmative resolution orders rather than negative orders.
I am not overly excited by either procedure. I do not think that the guarantee of an hour and a half's debate to approve extending legislation such as this is particularly satisfactory. I argue that there should be procedural changes so that, at least, on the first occasion that such a procedure is implemented there is a guarantee of rather more than an hour and half's debate. It is not satisfactory for a Government to go for extensions to an Act of Parliament on the basis of a possible hour and a half's debate, as a result of a prayer, when there is also the possibility of less than an hour's debate on the topic.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 206.

Division No. 37]
[2 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hancock, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashdown, Paddy
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Howells, Geraint


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hoyle, Douglas


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Janner, Hon Greville


Beith, A. J.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Kirkwood, Archy


Bermingham, Gerald
Lambie, David


Blair, Anthony
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Leighton, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Caborn, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh


Cartwright, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clelland, David Gordon
McKelvey, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Coleman, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Madden, Max


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Mallon, Seamus


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martin, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Michie, William


Dobson, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Dormand, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dubs, Alfred
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eadie, Alex
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Pavitt, Laurie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Foster, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Foulkes, George
Pike, Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Freud, Clement
Radice, Giles


Garrett, W. E.
Raynsford, Nick


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redmond, Martin


Gould, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Richardson, Ms Jo





Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tinn, James


Rowlands, Ted
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wareing, Robert


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Welsh, Michael


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Winnick, David


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Don Dixon and


Stott, Roger
Mr. James Hamilton.


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Franks, Cecil


Alexander, Richard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Freeman, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Fry, Peter


Ashby, David
Gale, Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
Galley, Roy


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baldry, Tony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, Harry


Benyon, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hannam, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harris, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Henderson, Barry


Bright, Graham
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brinton, Tim
Hicks, Robert


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bruinvels, Peter
Hill, James


Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butcher, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cash, William
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunter, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Jessel, Toby


Churchill, W. S.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Key, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cope, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Corrie, John
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lament, Rt Hon Norman


Crouch, David
Lang, Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Latham, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lawler, Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dunn, Robert
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Durant, Tony
Lightbown, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lilley, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McCrindle, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Farr, Sir John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Favell, Anthony
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Forman, Nigel
McQuarrie, Albert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, David


Forth, Eric
Major, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Malins, Humfrey






Malone, Gerald
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marlow, Antony
Shersby, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Silvester, Fred


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Merchant, Piers
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Spencer, Derek


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stern, Michael


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powley, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Proctor, K. Harvey
Trotter, Neville


Raffan, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Ward, John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Whitfield, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Rowe, Andrew
Woodcock, Michael


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Francis Maude and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

PENSION ARRANGEMENTS

'The Secretary of State shall ensure that, for the determination of pension arrangements, the agreement on pay reached under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on 21st November 1986 shall be deemed to have effect from 1st January 1987.'.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 193.

Division No. 38]
[2.11 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blair, Anthony


Alton, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Bruce, Malcolm


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Cartwright, John


Beith, A. J.
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clelland, David Gordon


Bermingham, Gerald
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)





Coleman, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Conlan, Bernard
Michie, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Mikardo, Ian


Corbett, Robin
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, William


Dobson, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dormand, Jack
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Eadie, Alex
Parry, Robert


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Pendry, Tom


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Radice, Giles


Fisher, Mark
Raynsford, Nick


Flannery, Martin
Redmond, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Rooker, J. W.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Freud, Clement
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Garrett, W. E.
Rowlands, Ted


Golding, Mrs Llin
Sedgemore, Brian


Gould, Bryan
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hancock, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Skinner, Dennis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Snape, Peter


Howells, Geraint
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Douglas
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lambie, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Leadbitter, Ted
Tinn, James


Leighton, Ronald
Wallace, James


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Livsey, Richard
Wareing, Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Weetch, Ken


McCartney, Hugh
Welsh, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Winnick, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McTaggart, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Madden, Max



Mallon, Seamus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Martin, Michael
Mr. Don Dixon.


Maxton, John





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruinvels, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butcher, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baldry, Tony
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, W. S.


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Cockeram, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Colvin, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cope, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Corrie, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Crouch, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dorrell, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert






Durant, Tony
Merchant, Piers


Dykes, Hugh
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Eggar, Tim
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fallon, Michael
Moate, Roger


Farr, Sir John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Favell, Anthony
Neale, Gerrard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Neubert, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Onslow, Cranley


Forman, Nigel
Oppenheim, Phillip


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Eric
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Pawsey, James


Franks, Cecil
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Fry, Peter
Price, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Proctor, K. Harvey


Galley, Roy
Raffan, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rathbone, Tim


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Rhodes James, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Grant, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Greenway, Harry
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Gregory, Conal
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hannam, John
Rost, Peter


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rowe, Andrew


Harris, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Haselhurst, Alan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Henderson, Barry
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hicks, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Shersby, Michael


Hill, James
Silvester, Fred


Holt, Richard
Sims, Roger


Howard, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Spencer, Derek


Hunter, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jessel, Toby
Stanbrook, Ivor


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stern, Michael


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Key, Robert
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Knox, David
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lang, Ian
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Latham, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Trotter, Neville


Lester, Jim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


McCrindle, Robert
Ward, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Watts, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whitfield, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maclean, David John
Winterton, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wolfson, Mark


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Wood, Timothy


McQuarrie, Albert
Woodcock, Michael


Major, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Malone, Gerald



Marland, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. David Lightbown and


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Mr. Michael Portillo.


Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 18

SCHOOL MEALS (NO. 2)

'The Secretary of State may empower local education authorities to negotiate an agreement on pay and conditions for all those involved in the supervision of school meals.'.—[Mr. Fatchett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is significant that at the end of this lengthy Committee stage, new clause 18 deals with the supervision of the school meals service. School meals provide the best illustration of the different approaches adopted by the Opposition and the Government to this service. School meals were last discussed during the Report stage proceedings earlier this year on the Education (No. 2) Bill. The Secretary of State for Education and Science will remember that on that night we succeeded in abolishing corporal punishment. He will be remembered as the Secretary of State who abolished corporal punishment. When we debated the school meals service on that occasion I moved a new clause that would have set national standards for the school meals service. The new clause was defeated, but that came as no surprise. However, it is significant that the next day Buckinghamshire county council discussed its provision of a school meals service and decided to abolish it.
The difference between the policies adopted by the Opposition and the Government are best reflected at local level—by decisions similar to that which was taken by Buckinghamshire county council. It has resulted in the loss of jobs and in the loss of a service that was important to so many children in Buckinghamshire.
What happened in Buckinghamshire is typical of what has happened to the school meals service since this Government were elected. Cuts have been made each year in the rate support grant and that has led to cuts in the school meals service. Rate support grant cuts lead to a reduction in the quality and the quantity of the service. They lead also to an increase in the price of school meals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has compared the price of school meals in various local authorities. His survey shows that Labour-controlled authorities provide the best and the cheapest school meals service. In Labour-controlled authorities the price of a school meal is 57p, whereas in Conservative-controlled authorities it is 67p. In the middle but, as usual, leaning towards Conservative-controlled authorities, alliance-controlled authorities charge 65p. If one lives in either an alliance-controlled or a Conservative-controlled authority, it is impossible to detect the difference.
The alliance tell us that the best value for the electorate is a balanced Parliament and balanced local authorities. Those who live in Somerset suffer the ill-effects of a balanced local government in terms of school meals. The price of a school meal in Somerset is 75p, which is above the average price that is charged by Conservative-controlled authorities.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that at this stage the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, but I shall not give way to him at this point.
The Black report came to the conclusion that the nutritional value of school meals is very important for all children. Its conclusion was reinforced earlier this year by a House of Lords Select Committee report on the school meals service. This Government and Conservative-controlled local authorities are trying to ensure that school children are provided with cheap, quick meals and junk food. They refuse to provide an adequate school meals service.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: What about the food?

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman asks, "What about the food?" Under his Government the nutritional value of school meals has declined. New clause 18 would provide local authorities with the power to negotiate an agreement on pay and conditions that would lead to the provision of a nationwide school meals service.
The Opposition believe in negotiation and in collective bargaining. New clause 18 provides for collective bargaining and for a negotiated agreement for those involved in the supervision of school meals.
At the moment there is substantial variation between authorities. There are variations in schemes, conditions of service and pay for individuals employed in the service. We have those differences and the head teachers' organisations have said to us, and I am sure they have said to Conservative Members, that the only way in which we can make progress is to have a nationally negotiated scheme that will give the head teachers and their organisations what they wish.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cecil Franks: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Can you give some guidance? As I understand it, our deliberations having reached 2.30 pm on Thursday afternoon — [HON. MEMBERS: "Wednesday."] the business for Thursday will not take place. Not only will the business not take place, but, equally, Prime Minister's Question Time will not take place. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who have an interest in Prime Minister's Question Time. Is it not a disgrace that the Labour party should—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are in Committee. It is not for me to give procedural decisions about the meetings of the House. We must continue with the Bill.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. There is a danger of the Committee being misled by the point of order of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). You will know, Mr. Armstrong, that there are many opportunities for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House and that would provide a great opportunity not only for the Prime Minister to be questioned, but, a novel opportunity for this Prime Minister, for her to give some answers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are in Committee and we should proceed on that basis.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I will not take any more points of order on procedure.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the House again that we are in Committee; unless the points of order are directed to the Committee proceedings, I will not take any more.

Mr. Fatchett: Over the past 24 hours my hon. Friends and I have fought for democratic rights in Britain. That is why we have opposed the Bill that takes negotiating rights from trade unionists and teachers. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not want to listen to the educational argument and want to raise bogus points of order. If at any time they had wanted to stop the deliberations of this Committee they had the opportunity to do so. They have not done so.
This has been an important education debate. People who are involved in education have listened to this debate. They have seen the reaction of the Government to democratic rights and they will have listened to the reaction of Conservative Members who are not prepared and not interested in the issues we have been debating. Over the past 24 hours we have been involved in fundamental issues. New clause 18 is a practical and more prosaic issue but it is important for the children of our country. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in supporting new clause 18.

Mr. Dunn: rose—

Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. Since the business that was provisionally set down for Thursday, has lapsed, may we expect the Leader of the House to make a statement on business and whether—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman can raise that point of order when we are no longer in Committee.

Mr. Dunn: I approach this part of our proceedings with some anxiety because I believe that our debates over the past 24 hours—

Mr. Bruinvels: 23.

Mr. Dunn: —have been cheerful relevant and robust, and we have won the vote on every occasion. Needless to say, we have won the arguments [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We have had long debates during the night and we would continue our Committee proceedings much better if sedentary interventions were more restrained from both sides of the House.

Mr. Dunn: I always enjoy the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). However, when he talks about trampling on people's rights and about upholding a concept of Socialist democracy, I can remember, over a period of some 20 years, a catalogue of abuse from the Labour party in the context of people's rights. It started over 20 years ago with the Burmah Oil legislation—[Interruption.] leading on, in the context of new clause 18, to the introduction of circular 10/65 which abolished our grammar schools, and the iniquitous Education Act 1976 which was supported by the other Socialist parties in the House. That took away the rights of local authorities to organise secondary provision as they


felt fit. The latest catalogue, in the context of new clause 18, is that the Labour party is committed to the abolition of the assisted places scheme and existing grammar schools. It will abolish the city technology colleges—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the supervision of school meals.

Mr. Dunn: In all the free-standing establishments where school meals are served the Labour party would seek to abolish them and deny people's choice.
I thought that the purpose of the debate was to discuss new clause 18. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it then."] We shall do it. [Interruption.] Labour Members should listen. We have set all local authorities free from Socialism of the direct and indirect collectivist sense. I look forward to the day, in five years' time when we see Socialism reduced to the numbers currently occupied by the Social Democratic party.
I suggest that the House rejects new clause 18.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 138, Noes 211.

Division No. 39]
[2.38 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Alton, David
Freud, Clement


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ashdown, Paddy
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hancock, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hoyle, Douglas


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Blair, Anthony
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
John, Brynmor


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bruce, Malcolm
Kirkwood, Archy


Caborn, Richard
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Leadbitter, Ted


Cartwright, John
Leighton, Ronald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clay, Robert
Livsey, Richard


Clelland, David Gordon
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McTaggart, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dormand, Jack
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Michie, William


Eadie, Alex
Mikardo, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley





Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Skinner, Dennis


Park, George
Snape, Peter


Parry, Robert
Soley, Clive


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Raynsford, Nick
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Redmond, Martin
Tinn, James


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wallace, James


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, J. W.
Wareing, Robert


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Weetch, Ken


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Welsh, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Mr. Mark Fisher and


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Ron Davies.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ancram, Michael
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baldry, Tony
Freeman, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Fry, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Benyon, William
Galley, Roy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Greenway, Harry


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gregory, Conal


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brinton, Tim
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hannam, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Harvey, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Corrie, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Key, Robert


Dunn, Robert
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Farr, Sir John
Latham, Michael


Favell, Anthony
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lester, Jim


Forman, Nigel
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)






Lightbown, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lilley, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


McCrindle, Robert
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Malone, Gerald
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marlow, Antony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spencer, Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Merchant, Piers
Stanbrook, Ivor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trippier, David


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wheeler, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Whitfield, John


Powley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Winterton, Nicholas


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wolfson, Mark


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Woodcock, Michael


Rathbone, Tim



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Tony Durant and


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Michael Portillo.


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule 1

CONSTITUTION AND PROCEEDINGS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Freud: I beg to move amendment No. 217, in page 5, leave out lines 17 and 18.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 218, in page 5, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
'(1) The Committee shall elect one of its number to serve as chairman and one of its number to serve as deputy chairman.'.

No. 219, in page 5, line 20, leave out The Secretary of State' and insert—
'The members from amongst themselves'.

No. 220, in page 5, line 22, at end insert—
'and either the Chairman or Deputy Chairman (if applicable) shall be appointed from amongst the members representing local education authorities.'.

No. 221, in page 5, line 28, at end, insert—

'Ineligibility for appointment

2A. No one who is a governor of, or recommended by, any private educational institution shall be eligible for appointment.'.

No. 222, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
'(1) The Committee shall maintain a register of members' interests, listing the relevant financial interests of each member of the committee, which shall be open to public inspection.'.

No. 223, in page 5, line 33, at end insert—
'but the allowance in each case shall be no more than £2,000 per annum.'.

No. 224, in page 5, line 37, leave out 'pension'.

No. 225, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
'giving the reasons for his decisions.'.

No. 226, in page 6, line 7, at end insert—
'and shall lay an order before the House for affirmative resolution before any such payment under this paragraph shall be paid.'.

No. 227, in page 6, line 18, leave out
'such as the Committee may determine'
and insert—
'at least half of the total membership excluding the Chairman.".

No. 228, in line 20, after 'members', insert—
'up to a total of two vacancies.'.

No. 229, in page 6, line 20, at end insert—
'(3) All meetings of the Committee shall be conducted in public.'.

Mr. Freud: We are reaching the end of the debate and this is a unique opportunity to win a Division. We have come second 15 times and it is absolutely fair now to expect victory.
We feel that, in a bludgeoning, bullying, uncaring and dictatorial Bill, the least that can be done is to give better reasons for someone's elimination from membership of an advisory committee than that the Secretary of State feels that they are unfit.
Perhaps the more important of our two amendments is the one that seeks to take out the statement:
The Secretary of State shall appoint one of the members of the Advisory Committee to be Chairman and may appoint one of them Deputy Chairman.
Instead, we would insert a democratic electoral system. I suppose that the Secretary of State, bearing in mind that members of the advisory committee shall be appointed and shall not be paid, is frightened that they may not be of the right quality to elect a chairman or deputy chairman. We would resent that. Here is an ideal opportunity of practising democracy and introducing a small amount of democracy into what is basically a dictatorial Bill.
We suggest that the five to nine members be allowed to elect their own chairman by a single transferable vote, an admirable system. The members of the advisory committee will have their names put down on a piece of paper and will write from one to five or from one to nine on them. This will go on until someone reaches an overall majority. It may be possible that the people whom the Secretary of State will nominate for membership of the advisory committee will all vote for themselves as their first preference. In that event, there is a draw, one of them is eliminated and that person's vote goes to the second name on the list. This goes on being done until an overall majority is reached.

Mr. Rowe: Is it part of the scheme that when the result is finally known, the ballot papers should be burnt and a


puff of smoke of the appropriate colour be emitted? If so, could this be regarded as a proper sequel to the Burnham committee?

Mr. Freud: The confidentiality of our electoral system does not need revision. What needs revision is our electoral system. If we could get smoke of an alliance colour, the idea would not be unattractive. At the moment, the available colours do not reflect either orange or black, so we have a problem.
This is a small thing to ask of the Secretary of State. It is the insertion of a small amount of democracy, simply so that the five to nine members of the advisory committee can at least be seen to have some authority and elect, among themselves, the chairman and the deputy chairman. We would not advise that the person who comes second should become deputy chairman, as it would be hard to find out who comes second unless one goes on using the alternative vote. There should be a separate election for the vice-chairman.

Mr. Dunn: The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) concern the make-up and proceeding of the advisory committee. The provisions in the schedule are all common form, and I can see no reason to disturb them. Throughout today, the Opposition have tried to make something of the provision that the Secretary of State may remove a member from office if that member is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member. They claim that there is something sinister in that. In fact, it is entirely common form. It appears in the Employment and Training Act 1973 in relation to the Manpower Services Commission. It appears in the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act passed by a Labour Government in 1974 in relation to the Health and Safety Commission. The Secretary of State would have to have evidence on which he could properly place an opinion that the member was unable or unfit to perform his duties. If he made an unreasonable decision, it could be challenged by way of judicial review.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East outlined a selection system for the election of chairman. To my dying day, I shall be opposed to a system of proportional representation.

Mr. Fisher: That is not on the amendment paper.

Mr. Dunn: I am grateful for that point.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East wants the committee to select its own chairman. The Committee understands that the members of the committee will be capable people, but the chairman must be prepared to devote more of his or her time and effort to the work of the committee. It must be right that the Secretary of State, bearing that in mind, should select the chairman of the committee. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 222.

Division No. 40]
[2.57 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Ashdown, Paddy
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)





Barron, Kevin
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Hugh


Beith, A. J.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bermingham, Gerald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bidwell, Sydney
Maclennan, Robert


Blair, Anthony
McTaggart, Robert


Boyes, Roland
Madden, Max


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Martin, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Maxton, John


Caborn, Richard
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Michie, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mikardo, Ian


Clay, Robert
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clelland, David Gordon
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Coleman, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Conlan, Bernard
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
O'Brien, William


Corbett, Robin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Corbyn, Jeremy
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Crowther, Stan
Park, George


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Parry, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Penhaligon, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pike, Peter


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dubs, Alfred
Radice, Giles


Eadie, Alex
Raynsford, Nick


Eastham, Ken
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rooker, J. W.


Fatchett, Derek
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Rowlands, Ted


Fisher, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian


Flannery, Martin
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Foster, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Freud, Clement
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Garrett, W. E.
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hancock, Michael
Stott, Roger


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Strang, Gavin


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Straw, Jack


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Howells, Geraint
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Hoyle, Douglas
Tinn, James


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Janner, Hon Greville
Wareing, Robert


John, Brynmor
Weetch, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lambie, David
Winnick, David


Lamond, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Leadbitter, Ted
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Leighton, Ronald



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. David Alton and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. John Carthwright.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, William


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Bellingham, Henry
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Bendall, Vivian
Brandon-Bravo, Martin






Brinton, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Bruinvels, Peter
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Key, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Burt, Alistair
King, Rt Hon Tom


Butcher, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Butterfill, John
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cash, William
Lang, Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Latham, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Lawler, Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lester, Jim


Colvin, Michael
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Cope, John
Lilley, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lyell, Nicholas


Dorrell, Stephen
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Macfarlane, Neil


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dunn, Robert
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Durant, Tony
Maclean, David John


Dykes, Hugh
McLoughlin, Patrick


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eggar, Tim
McQuarrie, Albert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Madel, David


Fallon, Michael
Major, John


Farr, Sir John
Malone, Gerald


Favell, Anthony
Marland, Paul


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marlow, Antony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maude, Hon Francis


Fletcher, Alexander
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Merchant, Piers


Forth, Eric
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Franks, Cecil
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Freeman, Roger
Moate, Roger


Fry, Peter
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gale, Roger
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Galley, Roy
Moynihan, Hon C.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Nicholls, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Onslow, Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grant, Sir Anthony
Ottaway, Richard


Greenway, Harry
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Gregory, Conal
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hannam, John
Pawsey, James


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Harvey, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, William (Corby)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Powley, John


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Price, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Raffan, Keith


Henderson, Barry
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rhodes James, Robert


Hill, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Holt, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Howard, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rost, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Sayeed, Jonathan





Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thurnham, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shersby, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Silvester, Fred
Trippier, David


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Spencer, Derek
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Watts, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitfield, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Woodcock, Michael


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This has been a long, thorough and exhaustive debate, but it has not been exhausting for me, for my Minister of State or for my Under-Secretary. We are ready for many hours of debate. I thank my hon. Friends for the help that they have given me during the course of the debate. The only closure during the past 24 hours was moved by the Liberal party. Until the point when members of the Liberal party moved that closure, no member of the Liberal or alliance parties had had anything to contribute. I was keen to ensure that, on such an important matter as the Bill, we should use neither the closure not the guillotine, although I was sorely tempted to do so as the speech made by the Hon. Member for Bolsover, (Mr. Skinner) reached the end of its second hour.
So great was the interest of Her Majesty's official Opposition that, for some Divisions, only 26 or 27 Members had managed to stay up. During Divisions, Conservative Members overwhelmed Labour Members by five to one. At two o-clock this morning, Conservative Members were joined on the Government Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We saw neither sight nor sound of the Leader of the Opposition. I thank all my hon. Friends for sharing my determination to see that the Bill goes on to the statute book.
The Bill is important because it marks the end of the discredited Burnham negotiating machinery. It marks the beginning of the period in which pay and conditions will be settled together. It re-establishes a proper role for the Secretary of State in determining schoolteachers' pay. Above all, it provides a way of bringing to an end the negotiating brawl that has disfigured the education system for the past two years and in which children have been the victim.
Under the 1944 Act, the Secretary of State is the guardian of educational standards. He is the upholder of the quality of education service. Right at the heart of the quality of that service stands the teacher. That is why, in


discharging my responsibility, I have provided for an extra £600 million expenditure this year and next year for more pay for teachers. This will provide an average increase of 16·4 per cent. and will mean, when added to what has already been paid this year, an average increase of 25 per cent. over 18 months. This is a massive and generous increase, unique in the public sector.
Under my proposals, a good honours graduate—we need to attract such graduates to teaching—will start at £8,500 a year. If he or she becomes head of a big school, the salary will be over £30,000. Attracting good graduates into the profession is not enough. We need to keep them there. To motivate them, we need a structure with incentives, differentials and good promotion prospects—a structure that recognises and reward the good classroom teacher and those taking on additional responsibilities, and also provides flexibility for filling difficult posts, including those in shortage subjects.
I am pleased that there has been a measure of agreement on certain aspects of the Bill. I wish to stress the measure of agreement between all hon. Members. The agreement is that Burnham should go, that pay and conditions should be settled together, that a clear definition of teachers' jobs should be adopted, and that the Secretary of State should have a proper role in pay determination. However, we disagree fundamentally with Oppostion Members on the cost structure and pay machinery. They want to keep the same type of negotiating machinery that has failed to produce a settlement for two years—that machinery got the agreement of five unions in Coventry last July, the agreement of four in Nottingham and, now, the agreement of two. We propose an interim measure, an advisory committee that will receive evidence, including that from unions and local authorities, separately or jointly. I shall then consult the unions and the local authorities about the recommendations of the committee.
The Bill also will enable me to move to resolve the current impasse. I shall meet two of the unions and the local authorities over the next few days. My door will remain open. One union has already made some proposals about how it might move on structure. I shall need to explore those proposals and discuss them.
In the past 24 hours, I have heard a great deal about trade union negotiating rights and trade union rights. These rights will be respected under the new arrangements. The unions will not be shut out from involvement in the determination of pay. They will have an important part to play. The unreality of the present position is that I have been virtually excluded, even though I am expected to provide a great deal of the money.
Although we have heard so much about trade union rights, we have not heard much about children's rights or about parents' rights to access to an uninterrupted and high quality education. To achieve a balance between all these rights and to resolve the current debacle, we should ensure the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Radice: I thank the staff and officers of the House who, despite the haste with which the Bill has been railroaded through the House, have provided hon. Members with the usual efficient service. I also pay tribute to my team and all of my parliamentary colleagues for

their sustained efforts that have ensured that this highly controversial Bill received adequate parliamentary scrutiny. However, as it leaves the House, the Bill still remains dangerously authoritarian. It removes collective bargaining rights, substitutes a system of ministerial diktat and will make the teachers' dispute harder not easier, to solve.
The Bill, in its seven short clauses, seeks to overturn all existing negotiating procedures to abolish teachers' direct participation in the determination of their pay and conditions of service and to abolish the rights of local authorities to have a say in determining the pay and conditions of those whom they employ. In place of collective bargaining, the Secretary of State proposes to establish a committee to advise him on teachers' pay and their conditions of service. That committee can only be described as the Secretary of State's poodle. He will decide its membership. He will have the power to sack its members at will. He can decide the terms of reference for the committee's work. The Secretary of State is leaving nothing to chance. In the event of his rigged committee reaching conclusions that are not to his liking, he has given himself the power to ignore its recommendations and to impose his own settlement.
The Secretary of State cannot claim that the proposals are an exceptional one-off measure covering only the immediate pay deal. The Secretary of State is to take these sweeping powers for at least the next three years. Indeed, if we count the retrospective powers, he will hold those powers for four years. If the Bill comes into force, 400,000 teachers will have fewer bargaining rights than any other group of public servants. I remind the House that civil servants have the Whitley council machinery. Nurses, doctors and the armed forces have independent review bodies that publish their own reports. Teachers will not even have that.
The Secretary of State has failed to shake our view that the Bill rides roughshod over International Labour Organisation conventions as well as the European social contract. Despite all our efforts, it remains a tyrannical piece of legislation. However, the Opposition have reminded the Government, who are growing arrogant with power, of the need to maintain parliamentary rights and scrutiny. We have drawn public attention to a Bill that gives exceptional and unacceptable powers to the Secretary of State. The Minister has deliberately tried to mislead the House and the media about the nature of the Bill. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not talk of an hon. Member "deliberately misleading" the House.

Mr. Radice: The Minister has misled the House about the nature of the Bill. If the Opposition had not discussed the Bill thoroughly, its true character would have remained hidden.
We have sent a signal to another place that the Bill needs careful scrutiny. It infringes basic rights. It gives unacceptable power to the Secretary of State. It makes a long-term settlement harder to achieve. It is a bad Bill and it does not deserve a place on the statute book.

Mr. Freud: The Secretary of State began his speech with a cheap jibe at the performance of the Liberals. I begin by complimenting all Front-Bench Members on their stamina


and courtesy throughout the night. The Secretary of State and his Ministers were here as long as most of us, as were the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, and all deserve recognition. As for the Secretary of State's jibe about the Liberals, I should point out that there were 20 groups of amendments on the Order Paper. We signalled on Second Reading that we would not seek to amend clause 1, so we did not enter the debate until the third set of amendments. The fact that 15 hours were spent on the first two is no good reason to blame us for not contributing.
Nevertheless, this is still a rotten little Bill. It abolishes negotiating rights. I remind the Secretary of State again that the more one can negotiate the greater is the safety valve and the less is the danger of industrial dispute. Genuinely, and for the sake of our children, I must say that I do not believe that the Bill will bring peace to our classrooms.
We have always favoured the repeal of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965. We have agreed that the Burnham machinery has clearly become inadequate and we have never denied that the Secretary of State has an undisputed right to legislate. We are saying that he should not do it in this way in a temporary measure for this long. We believe that this is a dangerously authoritarian Bill. In this dispute the Secretary of State surely has a duty to find common ground to aid a true settlement rather than alienating and demoralising the entire teaching profession as I believe he has done. Pushing a Bill of this kind through Parliament with such haste is not the best way to cultivate a good working relationship with the teachers.
In the context of employment legislation, I believe that the Bill is unprecedented. It means that 400,000 teachers will lose the rights that they have had in law since 1919. I am still waiting for a reply from the Minister of State as to which other group of workers — police, firemen, nurses, look where she will—is similarly disadvantaged in negotiations. The Bill directly contravenes two International Labour Organisation conventions, both signed and accepted by the Government. We need a new initiative from the Secretary of State to help solve the dispute, not the strong-arm tactics that we have seen. One wonders about the implications for other public sector employees. Is the Bill the thin end of the wedge? Who will be next? Will it be the Civil Service? Will the First Division Association be denied its negotiating rights?
Finally, the award for the worst point made in twenty-three and a half hours of debate must go to the Minister of State when she said that although a majority of the teachers had voted for the ACAS agreement she would not admit it because the majority of the unions had voted against it. If she genuinely believes that that view has any credibility, she may care to consider that the Government represent just one party while the Opposition represent the Labour party, the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party, the Scottish Nationalists, the Welsh Nationalists and the Ulster Unionists. On the hon. Lady's argument, we outnumber the Government party by six to one. What a rotten argument. If for no other reason than that, I hope that the House will deny the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes.152.

Division No. 41]
[3.24 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Tom


Ancram, Michael
Ashby, David





Aspinwall, Jack
Harvey, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Baldry, Tony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Bellingham, Henry
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Bendall, Vivian
Hayward, Robert


Benyon, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Henderson, Barry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hind, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hirst, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Holt, Richard


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Howard, Michael


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brinton, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bruinvels, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Jessel, Toby


Burt, Alistair
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Butterfill, John
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Key, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cash, William
King, Rt Hon Tom


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Churchill, W. S.
Knox, David


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lang, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Latham, Michael


Cope, John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Robert
Lyell, Nicholas


Durant, Tony
McCrindle, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Eggar, Tim
Maclean, David John


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Farr, Sir John
McQuarrie, Albert


Favell, Anthony
Madel, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Major, John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Malone, Gerald


Fletcher, Alexander
Marland, Paul


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marlow, Antony


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Merchant, Piers


Franks, Cecil
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fry, Peter
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Roger


Galley, Roy
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Moynihan, Hon C.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Murphy, Christopher


Goodlad, Alastair
Neale, Gerrard


Grant, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Nicholls, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Norris, Steven


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ottaway, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hannam, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Harris, David
Pattie, Geoffrey






Pawsey, James
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Powell, William (Corby)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powley, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Proctor, K. Harvey
Terlezki, Stefan


Raffan, Keith
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Trippier, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Trotter, Neville


Rost, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Scott, Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitfield, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Derek
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Woodcock, Michael


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mr Michael Portillo.


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





NOES


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cartwright, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Thomas


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Clay, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clelland, David Gordon


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Conlan, Bernard


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Anthony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dixon, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm
Dobson, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Dormand, Jack





Dubs, Alfred
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eadie, Alex
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foulkes, George
Park, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie


Freud, Clement
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, W. E.
Penhaligon, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hancock, Michael
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rooker, J. W.


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Douglas
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Janner, Hon Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


John, Brynmor
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Lamond, James
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Straw, Jack


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mallon, Seamus
Wareing, Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Weetch, Ken


Martin, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Meacher, Michael



Meadowcroft, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, William
Mr. Mark Fisher and


Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Derek Fatchett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.

MONDAY 15 DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions.

Motion for the Christmas Adjournment. It will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 19 December until Monday 12 January.

Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

Motion on the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 3) Order.

Motions on supplementary benefit regulations relating to mortgage interest. Details will be given in the Official Report.

There will be a debate on EC documents relating to fisheries arrangements for 1987. Details will be given in the Official Report.

WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.

Motion relating to the Water Authorities (Return on Assets) Order.

THURSDAY 18 DECEMBER—Motions on supplementary and social security benefit orders and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.

FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER—Adjournment debates.

Tuesday 16 December

Relevant European documents:


(a) 10549/86
Fish guide prices


(b) Unnumbered
Fisheries total allowable catches and quotas 1987


(c) Unnumbered
Reciprocal fisheries agreement with Norway 1987

Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 22-i (1986–87) para 2
(b) HC 22-iv (1986–87) para 5
(c) HC 22-iv (1986–87) para 6

[Motions on supplementary and social security benefit orders and regulations to be debated on Thursday 18 December

The draft Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Amendment Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986 No. 1961)

The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1986

The draft Supplementary Benefit Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1986

The draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1986

The draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rates of Payment) Regulations 1986

The draft Social Security Benefits (Contributions, Re-rating (No. 2) Order 1986

The draft Social Security Benefits (Treasury Supplement to and Allocation of Contributions (Re-rating) Order 1986

The Housing Benefits (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2183)

Motions on Supplementary Benefit Payments (Mortgage) Interest Regulations to be debated on Tuesday 16 December

The draft Supplementary Benefit (Housing Requirements and Resources) Amendment Regulations 1986

The Supplementary Benefit (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 2154)]

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
The motion on Tuesday night relating to benefit regulations on mortgage interest is a shameful proposition, especially from a Government who have given away so much to those who are best off among home-buyers, and who now wish to deny those who, by definition, are among the worst off and most insecure in our society. It is the worst gesture possible, especially in the period immediately before Christmas. Talk about no room at the inn!
I welcome the announcement of a debate next week on the autumn statement. I should like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the recommendation in paragraph 10 of the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that was published yesterday. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would obtain an assurance from the Chancellor that, as the report states, he will make
all statements on macro-economic policy to the House of Commons, where he can be questioned by Honourable Members
and not outside the House.
In view of the fears of hon. Members on both sides of the House, if the Government make the wrong decision and opt for Boeing instead of Nimrod for the airborne early warning system, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week, and also arrange for a debate on that matter before the final decision is made? The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the impact that the wrong decision would have on jobs and on core technology in this country.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the widespread concern among local authorities about the continued postponement of an announcement on the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88? A third and unprecedented consultation document asking for responses by 19 December has been published. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is widely understood to be evidence of a Government effort to delay, rather than a genuine effort to broaden consultation? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for the Environment is twisting and turning in a desperate effort to buy off Tory Back Benchers by switching grants from the deprived inner city areas of Britain to the better-off home counties? When will the House be in a position to debate the RSG order for 1987–88?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that two weeks ago I asked him for an early debate on the privatisation of Rolls-Royce? Will he tell us when that debate will take place so that we can expose the Government's decision to use £100 million of public resources to promote the sale of public assets?

Mr. Biffen: I shall deal with those five points in the sequence in which they were presented.
I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said about the debate on mortgage interest payments and social security. However, I thought that the situation that he described was admirably rebutted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State when he made the statement yesterday. However, there will be a debate and the arguments can doubtless be expanded.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the autumn statement, and I confirm that the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee will be set down for consideration with that debate. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the anxieties the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the important decision that has to be made about Nimrod. I shall of course, pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I fully understand and underline their validity. Perhaps the question of the timing of any statement for debate can be pursued through the usual channels.
In this pre-Christmas period, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was being less than charitable about the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of the rate support grant. My right hon. Friend has shown that he is a shrewd and listening Secretary of State. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the imperative need for a statement on the rate support grant. I shall take account of his points but I have already implied that we shall be operating broadly in line with previous practice.
Although the privatisation proposals for Rolls-Royce cannot appear in the business for next week, that matter could be considered further through the usual channels. However, those really devoted to the topic may like to turn up during the debate after the Consolidate Fund Bill when privatisation may be discussed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I can exchange pleasantries then.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from Members of Parliament, the only person who works double or treble shifts at this time of the year is Father Christmas? Will he promise that in the new year the Government will be as good about giving hon. Members treats as Father Chistmas is?

Mr. Biffen: The one agonising fear that I have about this place is that there may be too many hon. Members who think that they are Father Christmas.

Mr. David Alton: Following the reported announcement in the press today that a £240 million radar contract has been signed with Iran, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made tomorrow morning on that important deal? How does it square with the Prime Minister's statement last week that the Government were consistently and scrupulously pursuing a "no arms" policy with Iran?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot in any way confirm the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of newspaper comment, but I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to it. That subject might conceivably be raised in relation to two or three of the topics that have been chosen for discussion on Monday, just as the question of Nimrod could also be raised then.

Mr. James Couchman: In view of the appalling threat posed to the nation's integrity by the remote possibility of a Labour Government implementing their defence policy, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a day's debate on the whole subject of defence and of our place in NATO as soon as the House returns after the Christmas recess?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend can rest assured that we are approaching the time of year when the individual Defence Estimates are debated by the House. That will happen after the Christmas recess. In the meantime, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to raise that issue in the debate under the Consolidated Fund.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Leader of the House has regularly displayed an almost genetic predisposition to fairmindedness and sound logic, and so it is with confidence that I ask him to take note of correspondence received from a constituent of mine today. The constituent is secretary to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and she refers to correspondence that has passed between the chairman of that organisation and the Home Secretary on three occasions since mid-September in relation to interference in telephone communications. As yet, that correspondence has not even been acknowledged. Will the right hon. Gentleman prevail on the Home Secretary to make a statement or, better still, to acknowledge that that correspondence has been received and is being given proper and careful attention?

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer that matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but meanwhile the hon. Gentleman may like to know that my right hon. Friend will be top for questions on Thursday 18 December.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: When will we debate the recommendation of the Procedure Committee on short speeches?

Mr. Biffen: Shortly.

Dr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that any announcement of a decision not to go ahead with the Nimrod early warning system after the Cabinet meeting on Thursday, the last full day that the House will sit, would be an outrageous way of treating the House, especially as we would not have any knowledge of the RAF's objections? We are not totally happy with the discussions promised through the usual channels, as it is they that have landed us in this extraordinary situation. Perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us why the Leader of the Opposition seems to want to avoid asking the Prime Minister questions.

Mr. Biffen: That subject has already been well worked over and the right hon. Gentleman has come in on the tail end of it. On his more substantial point, I should say that there is a prospect of a debate on the Nimrod issue tomorrow and again, possibly, during our Consolidated Fund debates. However, I cannot go beyond what I have said to the Leader of the Opposition. On reflection, I hope that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will feel that I have been quite forthcoming.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider early-day motion 310 on the subject of small dairy farms?
[That this House believes that should a reduction in milk quotas be necessary, the first 200,000 litres of a United


Kingdom holding should not be included in any calculations, thus helping to ensure the future of the small family farms which have done so much for the British countryside.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern felt by the dairy industry? Will he ensure that, as soon as practically possible after the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Europe, the House will have an opportunity to debate the subject fully?

Mr. Biffen: I well understand the anxiety that there should be a statement on the outcome of that meeting of the Council of Ministers, and I shall bear that in mind. The trouble is trying to determine when that meeting will conclude.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I recently left the Kensington Hilton where miners' homes are being auctioned to the highest bidder? Many of those miners are old people who have suffered severely during the past two or three years as a result of Government policy. They consider such action to be yet another kick in the teeth. I have seen what may be racketeers today bidding for those homes. They will become absentee landlords, and those aged miners will not even know who they are. The miners' houses will be allowed to fall into decay and disrepair. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is disgraceful of the board of British Coal? Will he arrange for an early debate on this matter?

Mr. Biffen: I do not necessarily accept in any sense the interpretation or motives that the hon. Gentleman attributed to the National Coal Board, but he will have an opportunity to raise the matter in the Adjournment debates on Friday 19 December.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on law and order and especially on lenient sentences? Will he give us the opportunity to debate the recent Reith lecture by Lord McCluskey, who called for an amnesty for some prisoners awaiting trial because they had committed only minor offences? Surely the punishment must fit the crime.

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend's points. Meanwhile, he may try to discover what options there are at Question Time on Thursday.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Leader of the House will recall that earlier this year the Secretary of State for Defence announced the privatisation of the royal ordnance tank factory in Leeds. It has been sold to Vickers. Now the Christmas pay-off has come and there are 400 redundancies. Will the Secretary of State tell us next week whether he knew of the 400 or 500 redundancies when he approved the privatisation? Many of us believe that if we had a proper policy on conventional defence in Germany Britain would be making those tanks for the British Army of the Rhine.

Mr. Biffen: Since both privatisation and defence will be debated on the Consolidated Fund Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider what opportunities that presents to him to make those points.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning in the Standing Committee on the Coal Industry Bill we were treated to the most extraordinary spectacle of the Labour party, apparently

on the instructions of Mr. Arthur Scargill, refusing to offer any comment whatever on clauses 5 to 9 of the Bill? That is half the entire Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to what goes on in a Standing Committee. He must ask for a debate about something.

Mr. Smith: I apologise Mr. Speaker. In the light of that may we have the Report stage on the Bill early so that we can have a further debate on the subject and so that the Labour party can get its act together?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly consider the timing of the Report stage, especially as it appears that that would enable the House to have a most entertaining debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement to answer the important allegations that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontyfract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and many others who signed the early-day motions about absentee landlords and Rachmanism that is taking place on a grand scale in the colliery areas? Is he aware, for instance that in my constituency a firm picked up houses at £3,000 each, which, according to the valuers, was less than the worth of the land upon which they stood? Within weeks they were sold for £6,000.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: That sounds like a Tory.

Mr. Skinner: There is no question but that they were Tories. That is why we are having some difficulty getting a debate. I wonder whether, rather than just telling my hon. Friend, as the Leader of the House told me last week, to raise this on the Christmas Adjournment—undoubtedly efforts will be made in that direction—he will also ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy is made aware of this because if the National Coal Board can shut pits because of market forces the same should apply to houses. Market forces were not the criteria used when selling those houses because none of them were out to open tender.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry that that rather extended question did not live up to the reputation which the hon. Gentleman created for himself last night with his speech.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman's head was on his pillow.

Mr. Biffen: I have my means of knowing. I was told that the speech was so formidable in its content that the day will arrive when every parliamentarian will have "Erskine May" on procedure and Skinner on amplification. The hon. Gentleman said that this week he wanted a different answer to the question he puts fairly regularly, so I will give him a different answer. On Monday he can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, who will be answering questions.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the second week running two lamentable early-day motions remain on the Order Paper which appear to impugn the honour of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. Should not those motions either be disposed of in the House or immediately withdrawn?

Mr. Biffen: I join with my hon. Friend in regretting the language in which the motions were couched, particularly


as they do not admit themselves to instant challenge when they are tabled. Their remaining on the Order Paper is entirely a matter for the hon. Members who have tabled them.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on why a Foreign Office official attended last weekend's conference of the Committee for a Free Nicaragua where Contra leader Arturo Cruz was preaching terrorism, despite an assurance that I received from the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office that no official would be present? Why did an official from our embassy in Costa Rica attend a conference in San Jose on 24 November to set up a rebel Government for Nicaragua? Is this a U-turn in our policy on central America under pressure from the United States? We must know whether the Government now support terrorism in central America.

Mr. Biffen: The Government's position has been made amply clear and remains completely consistent, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to take his arguments on this matter further may I tell him that the tenth topic chosen for the Consolidated Fund Bill is Government policy towards central America.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for a debate on the Floor of the House on the dispatch from Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador in Washington relating to the disastrous visit to Washington by the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Biffen: That is a matter of such lively and general interest that my hon. Friend will find his own opportunities to raise it without requiring my services.

Mr. James Lamond: Has the Leader of the House heard of an American-owned company called Electronic Data Systems, the chairman of which, Ross Perot, was forced to resign last week because he had paid a £2 million ransom at the request of Lieutenant-Colonel North to try to get released some hostages in the middle-east? That firm employs the most Victorian working conditions, sacking employees on the least excuse, and it has been accused—probably correctly—of employing illegal American immigrants. The Home Secretary is about to tell us that that company has been awarded the contract for the computers in the passport department of the Home Office and the police computer. Should not the Home Secretary come to the Dispatch Box next week to try to explain this further muddle?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman would agree that I might describe his accusations against a company as being more general than precise. Obviously, on Thursday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be at the Dispatch Box to take questions.

Mr. Derek Spencer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the work of the Highfields task force in my constituency is being sabotaged by the city council from a sense of political spite? Can he say when the House may have a debate in which the admirable possibilities of inner-city task forces can be displayed?

Mr. Biffen: I am fascinated because it seems that at this time of the week the House learns more and more of the

difficulties of the conduct of good government in Leicester. I take account of what my hon. and learned Friend says, but as a first thought I suggest that he might try to get an Adjournment debate on 19 December.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Is the Leader of the House aware that an important engineering company in the north-east, Cummins Engineering in Darlington, has announced a closure with 500 job losses and that that is causing dismay in Darlington and other areas of the northeast? Does he accept that that is another sign of the harsh decline in our manufacturing base? Will he find time so that we can discuss this one issue in a serious manner, if not next week, at least when the House returns?

Mr. Biffen: I understand the anguish caused in the north-east by that closure. I shall refer the question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Gerrard Neale: On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), may I make a last-ditch appeal on behalf of the Opposition parties for a sign of good cheer from the Leader of the House? In the light of the speedy evolution of their defence policies, could my right hon. Friend find a way of offering them a fortnightly debate when we return after the Christmas recess until some unknown date in May or June to give them the opportunity to explain to the House and the country the latest mutation in their policies?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes an appeal which has wide and popular support in the House, but, without being too Scrooge-like, may I say that there is a tactic in one's timing of these great topics. I hope that we shall not use up the defence issue too soon.

Mr. Greville Janner: Referring to the request of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), may I ask that there should, indeed, be a debate about poverty and disadvantage in the city of Leicester, not least in the Highfields area, where the Government are doing little to help, and in outer areas, which do not receive inner-city help? In Braunstone in my constituency, for example, unemployment is about 60 per cent. Such areas tend to be omitted from the programmes in the belief that disadvantage, poverty and unemployment are the prerogative of central areas of cities.

Mr. Biffen: I would be happy to do a trade with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps we could give up one sitting which ran through the night, who knows, and in return thereafter have a Leicester-free zone in the affairs of this place.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Opposition parties are keen to debate subjects, such as South America, Africa and Asia, but banded together to avoid having a discussion about agriculture and fisheries in Scotland on Monday? Can he give an early date when we may be able to discuss that?

Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's point and the genuine irritation that it must cause him and all those who have the fishing industry's fortunes at heart. I shall certainly look at it.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I know that the Leader of the House, in his Father Christmas spirit, was


disappointed that he could not join his hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House last Tuesday when we gave considerable support to the nursing profession during this difficult period. Will he now study my early-day motion 300 about the nurses pay award 1987?
[That this House welcomes the appointment of Sir James Cleminson as the new Chairman of the Review Body for Nurses and Midwives Remuneration; notes with concern, however, that the recommendations of his predecessor, in spite of declarations of acceptance by the Prime Minister, were scaled down in 1985 by being implemented for only two months instead of 12, and that in 1986 the 8 per cent. recommended was reduced to 75 per cent. of that award by the commencement of payments only from 1st July instead of 1st April; and now urges Her Majesty's Government not to evade a full and genuine acceptance of the coming 1987 recommendations and to give nurses and midwives their full entitlement, as decided by an independent and objective Review Body.]
I am not asking for a debate in the immediate future, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's well known economic expertise, will he use his influence with the Cabinet to ensure that for the third time nurses are not conned out of the award given by an independent and objective review body?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman asked a wide-ranging and dangerous question which he sought to cloak with flattery. Obviously, I shall read his early-day motion and draw its contents to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week I drew his attention to outside pressures on hon. Members resulting from the position in mining areas? May I draw his attention to early-day motion 337, which was laid today and is gathering signatures at a fair rate?
May I also draw his attention to the fact that the alliance group leader on an east Sussex county council has referred to one of our hon. Friends as a "Tory scab" because he is an ex-miner and a Conservative Member? Should we perhaps provide a short debate to allow the parliamentary leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties either to confirm that attitude or to dissociate themselves from it?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The language that seems to be used by the Sussex elite of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties is not language that we would wish to hear in this Chamber. As for the debate, I am under some difficulty because, as I look at the Benches, I do not see a single, wholesome, working-class prejudice among them.

Mr. Peter Pike: Has the Leader of the House heard that the Department of the Environment has made it clear that it will soon be informing local authorities of housing investment programme allocations for next year? As we are seeing a deterioration in housing, in both the public and private sectors, will he arrange a debate in Government time on housing as soon as possible after the figures are announced?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's request, but he, too, will be able to share my anxiety about the shortness of time which is available to the

Government. However, I can hold out to him the modest crumb of comfort that housing is the third topic nominated for debate under the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. John Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of great regret that the protracted proceedings on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill had the effect of saving the Leader of the Opposition the embarrassment of having to face my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time? Will my right hon. Friend provide injury time during the business of next week so that the sport is not lost for good but merely deferred? Will he consider introducing a Leader of the Opposition's Question Time because many hon. Members take the view that the right hon. Gentleman receives a substantial salary from public funds and many of our constituents, as taxpayers, feel that he provides poor value for money?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is showing a slightly unhealthy degree of thirst for parliamentary blood sports in making those requests. I must tell him — I say this from genuine affection for the Leader of the Opposition — that we must preserve the right hon. Gentleman because, if he did not exist, he would certainly have to be created.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Leader of the House realise that he is being unfair and discourteous to the minority parties, especially in Scotland and the northern quarter of the electorate whom they represent, in rejecting our legitimate, fair request to meet him to discuss the handling of the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc, Bill after the Committee was set up? Is he further aware that that unfairness and discourtesy was parallelled by his bouncing a debate on local agriculture in Scotland on Scottish Members without porper notice or discussion with their representatives? Can he say why he has such double standards of courtesy?

Mr. Biffen: First, no discourtesy was intended, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that. Secondly, most objective observers will assume that I have been as broadly discourteous to him as to everybody else trying to make a claim on the time of the House which I cannot concede.
On the Special Standing Committee procedure for the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. Bill, it is available to the hon. Gentleman to seek that from the House. He does not have to have that from me.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: In welcoming the Government's consultation paper on the Warnock issues and the rejection of knee-jerk legislation, when does my right hon. Friend feel that we can have time for the fullest possible debate which the Government called for in the paper?

Mr. Biffen: Not this side of Christmas. But I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's point because this is a topic which commands genuine interest in the House and the public generally will expect some movement.

Mr. Tony Banks: Earlier the Leader of the House suggested that hon. Members who were interested in the Government's privatisation programme should join in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Surely he knows that that is listed as item 16 for debate and has little chance of being reached. Indeed, we may just reach item 12, which is my debate on the arts


budget for 1987–88 which, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, is one of the most interesting casualties from losing Thursday's proceedings. As there is a long list of items, will the Leader of the House explain why we are starting the Consolidated Fund Bill so late this year? Time has been lost and that is a great disadvantage to us.
As the right hon. Gentleman was very interested in the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), perhaps he can tell the House whether he heard my hon. Friend's excellent two-hour speech in the early hours of this morning. Is it not time that we had a special award for hon. Members—the Skinner award—for the longest and most interesting speech in a debate?

Mr. Biffen: I note the hon. Gentleman's point with much interest and with some soul-searching because I have been asked to facilitate the rule on 10 minute speeches. The two cannot be easily reconciled, though through Parliament most things are possible.
I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about the lateness of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I was not aware that it was that late or that it had given rise to any inconvenience to hon. Members.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Government's privatisation programme, of course there is an element of hope rather than expectation when I plead this opportunity, but what else can I do?

Mr. Tony Marlow: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the sole outcome of the Opposition keeping the House up throughout the whole of today, last night, or whatever, is to prove to those millions of ratepayers and taxpayers who earn less than teachers, who pay the teachers, and who are offered increases in pay less than that offered to the teachers that the Opposition think that the 16·4 per cent. offer is not enough? Is not this, after the Australian telephone calls and the visit of the Leader of the Opposition to the United States, the third Opposition banana skin in a fortnight?

Mr. Biffen: The fact that we have run through the night is a matter that we must observe. I hope that we will not be too free and easy in being disparaging about our procedures. I am sure that the Opposition believe that they have conducted their arguments by a reasonable standard. I imagine that they, like me, regard the BBC's description of the debate as a marathon filibuster as an unfair description. I hope that everyone outside will note that there was no attempt to guillotine or force a closure during the debates.
We have our own ways of proceeding. They may seem bewildering to the world outside from time to time, but it is just as well that this place has the confidence of its procedures rather than looking for the approval of editorial comments.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of Ealing, including the Leader of the Opposition, have been promised a rates increase of between 60 per cent. and 100 per cent. next April after one year of control by the new Labour majority on the council? In view of the serious effect that that is likely to have upon jobs and industry in the area, the devastating effect that it is having upon pensioners' ability to pay rates and the suffering and hardship that it is causing disabled people and many others, may we have an early debate on that issue,

Mr. Biffen: I hope that the serious position outlined by my hon. Friend, including the employment consequences that he suggested, will not in any way affect the employment of the Leader of the Opposition, who we all want to be Leader of the Opposition for many years to come.
I will consider my hon. Friend's wider point, but he will understand thatre is real pressure on Government time now.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that item No. 17 on the Consolidated Fund Bill list—the protection of the security of the United Kingdom—which is a euphemism for the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, should be brought forward and that we should have an urgent debate on that matter especially as it has just been announced on the news tapes that 16 NATO Foreign Ministers have agreed that they will bring forward proposals for cutting conventional arms in Europe?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. However, on the specific issue that he raised, he will realise that I have no power whatsoever, and indeed seek no power, to alter the arrangement of debates for the Consolidation Fund Bill. However, the topic that he has in mind could probably be debated on other maters more likely to be chosen for debate.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is some danger of the House being misled as a result of questions on today's business statement. In order that this House and wider opinion is not misled, attention should be drawn to the fact that it was certainly well within the Government's power to use their majority at any stage in the proceedings on the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill to ensure that progress was made.
If it was a pressing matter of attention by the Prime Minister, wanting to bring herself before the House to account for her actions, she had any amount of opportunity to do so, today or even conceivably tomorrow. The number of amendments tabled on the Bill—almost 250—as the Leader of the House has said, was a matter of legitimate debate, well within the power of the House, certainly well within the entitlement of the Opposition, and necessary because of the extremely contentious nature of the Bill.

Bills and Christmas Adjournment

Mr. Speaker: I have two statements to make. First, it may be for the convenience of the House if I confirm that the Public Bill Office has treated notices of ten minute rule motions received at 10 o'clock this morning as valid notwithstanding the fact that Thursday's sitting has been broken. The same treatment is being accorded to any notices of presentations of Bills handed in before the rising of the House today for tomorrow, Friday 12 December.
Secondly, I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 19 December, up to eight hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Eric Stanhope

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is in his place looking very spruce and energetic despite the fact that the House has been sitting for almost 24 hours. I also apologise from this place to a number of my constituents whom I should have seen this morning, as I was due to present awards and trophies at a winter fatstock sale in Chelford market in my constitutency. I apologise to the partners of Frank Marshall and Company and to the many people who were expecting me to be there.
I would like to raise the case of Mr. Eric Stanhope of Park House farm, Gawsworth in Cheshire, in my constituency. Mr. Stanhope's position is both a personal tragedy and one in which the spirit of moral justice has been denied by Cheshire county council through its practical insensitivity and its insistence on the application of the letter of regulations and the law. I cannot fault the county council in its strict legal interpretation of its position. However let me give a little of the background of this sad case.
Park House farm, which for 40 years has been the home of the Stanhope family, is a smallholding of just under 40 acres, which is owned by Cheshire county council and was first let to Mr. Stanhope's father as long ago as 1942. When Mr. Stanhope senior died, his wife—Eric Stanhope's mother—succeeded exceptionally to the tenancy in 1966. Since then, Eric Stanhope has worked the dairy farm, first for his mother as tenant and latterly for himself, albeit no tenancy has been granted to him by the county council. Following the death of Mrs. Stanhope in March 1982, a notice to quit was served by Cheshire county council on Eric Stanhope and his sister, Miss Rosemary Stanhope, allowing them 12 months to quit the smallholding.
Since the death of his mother, Mr. Stanhope has struggled to maintain the farm, despite the crippling effect of milk quotas inflicted on the industry in 1984—a burden which Mr. Stanhope, despite his desperate and serious situation, was not spared. In my view, Mr. Stanhope's ability and motivation to farm his holding properly has been severely and adversely affected by Cheshire county council's reluctance to grant him a tenancy in 1982. I must tell the House in all sincerity that it is my understanding that Mr. Stanhope's position, financially and in other ways, has deteriorated since then. In short, Eric Stanhope, who is now in his late 40s, has spent his entire working life on Park House farm working beside his father in the early years and then managing and working the holding for his mother until her death.
Mr. Stanhope has spent years—in fact, all his working life—at Park House farm, only now to see all his hopes dashed by the county's decision to refuse to allow him to achieve a tenancy. As justification for this decision, the county council cites the fact that it had reviewed the boundaries of all its farms under the provisions of the Agricultural Act 1970, a measure that encouraged the creation of more commercial units on smallholdings through amalgamation. At Gawsworth, it was decided to amalgamate the land, then tenanted by Mrs. Stanhope, with adjoining holdings when that became


possible. That decision was notified to and confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, the council accepts that the tenants concerned were not notified at that stage of this decision—the impact of which on Eric Stanhope's whole way of life was not to become apparent until many years later.
Court proceedings for possession were commenced in the autumn of 1983 and the case was finally heard in May this year. The council, in agreement with Eric Stanhope, undertook not to enforce the order for possession until 14 August. Mr. Stanhope continues to reside at the farmhouse but is now awaiting the fulfilment by the council of its promise to enforce the order for possession which it has already obtained.
Such is the letter of the law. A court has sat and decided that the council is acting within the law in pursuing the course which it has chosen and that it is within its rights to deprive Eric Stanhope of his home, his livelihood and his way of life, should it so wish. That is the law, but, in my opinion, for the county to enforce its rights in such a manner is far from just or moral.
Many questions need to be answered. First, why were the tenants not notified of the decision taken in 1972 to amalgamate smallholdings in Gawsworth to increase the size of adjacent tenancies by adding to them sections of Park House farm?
Secondly, the Agriculture Act 1970, under which this decision was made, was enacted to cover circumstances in a very different economic climate in the dairy industry and agriculture as a whole. At that time, there was a need to encourage county council landlords to amalgamate small farms so that they could establish larger, more profitable, viable holdings and so to improve the efficiency of the dairy industry and agriculture. The situation now is so very different. The agricultural sector is over-producing in the EEC and our own dairy farmers are suffering the results of severe milk quotas, with further quota reductions still to come. We are having to strive to reduce dairy output and not increase it. Why should this decision be enforced on economic grounds to which it runs counter?
Thirdly, the county has given assurances to Mr. Stanhope that it would seek to assist him in his desire to remain within the farming industry. Why, then, is it depriving him of any of the value of the milk quota which is attached to his holding? Without a share of the quota, he cannot even dream of remaining in the dairy industry. Why has Cheshire county council overlooked its promise to consider further aspects of the milk quota attached to the holding? In normal circumstances, should not the council consider allocating to Mr. Stanhope 25 per cent. of the value of his current quota in accordance with the Government's own formula—worth, if my arithmetic is right, some £3,000 to Mr. Stanhope?
Fourthly, back in 1982, the county gave Mr. Stanhope a promise that it would consider an application for another tenancy from him and that, in recognising the difficulties which he faced, it would consider what might be done to assist. Why has that promise amounted in the end to nothing? Why, despite such an undertaking to assist Mr. Stanhope to find an alternative tenancy, has the council seen fit to remove his name from its own register of approved tenants? What sort of assistance is that? Mr. Stanhope is not the most efficient of farmers. He is not

even typical of most small dairy farmers, and he has in some respects been his own worst enemy, but he has worked in farming all his life and he is very much part of the local farming community.
True, the council will argue that, subsequent to serving its notice to quit, it did notify Mr. Stanhope of other vacancies which became available. It claims to have fulfilled its commitment to Mr. Stanhope by considering his one application and rejecting it. It argues that it is justified in removing his name from its approved register because he made no other attempt to apply for an alternative tenancy at that stage. Was the council really justified in expecting Mr. Stanhope to apply for alternative tenancies at a time when his situation was still in dispute? Would that not have jeopardised his own case to be allowed to remain in his home—the home that he had known from his birth—at Park House farm in Gawsworth?
The council has claimed throughout this sorry saga that it is doing all that it can to assist Mr. Stanhope. So far, that assistance has amounted to very little. In the several years in which I have been helping Mr. Stanhope, I have yet to see a real and positive initiative by the council to consider the true impact of its decision. A man in his late forties, evicted from his lifelong home, deprived of his livelihood and, through the loss of his quota, of any possibility of remaining in the farming industry which has been his life—the future for Eric Stanhope is very bleak.
I cannot believe that the possibility does not exist of allowing Mr. Stanhope to retain the holding which he farmed for his mother until his retirement—which may be in just 10 years' time. I cannot believe that no solution can be found to allow him to remain in the only work that he has ever known, however badly the council believes he has performed. I cannot believe that the county cannot find some way of assisting him to remain in farming. I cannot believe that a more just handling could not be found for dealing with the milk quota, a percentage of which is Mr. Stanhope's by moral right even if not in the letter of the law.
What I can believe is that, in pursuing this cold and sad course of action, Cheshire county council has lost sight of the personal tragedy which it is inflicting. Obsessed—I use the word intentionally—by its own past decisions, it is turning a blind eye to the human effects of its policies. It has forgotten that farms are not just economic units; they are communities of people with their own hopes and aspirations—hopes and aspirations which the council has no moral right to ignore, to dash and to shatter.
It is time that the county lived up to its promises to Mr. Stanhope and genuinely sought a solution to his problems—which it is not only its moral right to do but, more importantly, just. I urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give sympathetic consideration to this sad case and the principle involved. If current legislation needs amendment, it is up to the Government to act.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on his success in coming first in the ballot. He said that he had cancelled various engagements to be here today to discuss this important matter. It is right that I should have waited here with him so that this issue could be discussed.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety about the issue, and especially about the circumstances faced by his constituent, Mr. Eric Stanhope. I am already aware of these concerns because of my hon. Friend's many representations to Ministers about this case. I know that his efforts have been directed to the county council as well as to Ministers.
County councils are in the best position to judge how to manage and run their smallholdings, and are free to manage them as they think best, bearing in mind all the circumstances.
We have heard the circumstances of this case from my hon. Friend and this is the right place to air the various views. Perhaps it would help the House if I explained the background to the smallholdings and agricultural holdings legislation. The provision of smallholdings is a traditional county council function. Even though I sympathise with the circumstances faced by Mr. Eric Stanhope, it has to be remembered that one of the main aims of statutory smallholdings was to provide a gateway into farming for suitably qualified young people with limited capital behind them. When the legislation was introduced it was recognised that although some tenants would stay on a small-holding for the remainder of their farming lives, others—and I stress that this latter group were expected to be the majority—would move on to a larger farm in the tenanted sector or would even be in a position to buy their own farms. The vacated smallholding would then be available to provide another young person with an opportunity of a first rung on the farming ladder. Unfortunately, the smallholdings estates have not proved as successful in providing this gateway into farming as might have been hoped.
One of the reasons for that has been the shortage of farms in the private tenanted sector—a problem exacerbated by the introduction in 1976 of statutory succession in the private sector by the Labour Government of the day. In addition, some tenants of statutory smallholdings have difficulty in building up sufficient capital from a relatively small farm to enable them to move on up the ladder. Nevertheless, the provision of statutory smallholdings at public expense can still be justified if they continue to work towards their original aim of providing a way into the industry for well qualified young people.
Many successive Governments have recognised the importance of the tenanted sector as a whole as it gives the well qualified outsider a chance to get a farm of his own. The Agriculture Act 1947 introduced lifetime security of tenure to encourage tenants to plan ahead and to look after their land as well as the interests of agriculture generally. This applied equally to tenants in the private sector and statutory smallholders. However, when the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 extended this security to two generations of eligible and suitable successors it was recognised that it was not appropriate to extend these provisions to smallholdings because it was clearly incompatible with the overall objective of providing an entry into farming for young people.
My hon. Friend well knows that after 1976 there was a general reluctance by landlords to let new land because they feared they might not be able to regain possession for 100 years or so.
We decided that some change in the law was required to make it more attractive for landlords to let their land, but we realised that any change must have the support of the industry. In 1981 the National Farmers Union and the

Country Landowners Association proposed, among other things, that succession rights for all new non-succession tenancies should be repealed. This was done in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1984. Tenants on county council smallholdings are therefore in much the same position as new tenants on farms in the private sector.
However, tenants on statutory smallholdings enjoy certain advantages over their private sector counterparts. The Smallholdings (Selection of Tenants) Regulations 1970, which was amended in 1976, requires the smallholdings authority, in relation to the first letting of the smallholding after the death of the tenant, to consider the suitability of the wife or husband, brother, or sister or child of the deceased tenant if they make an application to take on the smallholding, and only to consider other candidates if the close relatives have been refused the tenancy. They can be refused tenancy. In practice this means that a relative of the deceased tenant whose standard of farming is not above the average or outstanding could have an advantage over the highly promising outsider who may be better trained and more qualified than the close relative. This does not mean that the close relative has an automatic right to succeed to the tenancy.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern over the case of Mr. Stanhope, but it is most important that tenants and their families should be aware of their legal position and that they should make adequate provision for the future on the assumption that they will not necessarily be able to take over the holding. A tenant's executors are entited to claim compensation for the tenant's improvements to the holding. Those include long-term improvements made with the landlord's consent and also short-term improvements. If the parties cannot agree on the level of compensation, the Act provides for the matter to be determined by arbitration. The executors would also have an interest in the proceeds from the sale of stock and farm machinery.
As I mentioned earlier, regrettably statutory smallholdings have not been notably successful in providing as many young people as might have been hoped with a first step on the farming ladder because few smallholders have been able to move onto larger farms in the private sector. Furthermore, over the past 10 years or so there has been a steady decline in both the number of smallholdings and the total areas of land held for this purpose. However this is in part brought about by smallholdings authorties reorganising their estates as they were required to do under the Agriculture Act 1970. Some authorities have taken the opportunity to increase the size of some of their holdings so that tenants may be able to progress from smaller to larger more viable holdings on the estate. It is possible that tenants from the larger holdings may be in a better position financially to move onto farms in the private sector if the opportunities are available.
My hon. Friend clearly considers that this is an area where the Government ought to intervene especially because of the difficulties encountered by Mr. Stanhope. I recall that my hon. Friend asked for the law to be changed, but, as the law stands, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has certain limited responsibilities under the Agriculture Act 1970 to oversee the manner in which county councils manage their statutory smallholdings estates. That does not extend to the selection of tenants. This is a matter for the council. I understand that since Mr. Stanhope's mother's death


they have made certain offers to Mr. Stanhope. The council has tried to help him out of his predicament. My hon. Friend referred to those offers.
There is also the question of end-of-tenancy compensation in respect of milk quota. As my hon. Friend is aware, milk quota is attached to the land and cannot be removed when the producer leaves. There is, however, an obligation on the landlord under the Agriculture Act 1986 to pay end-of-tenanccy compensaion for milk quota to a lawful tenant of a holding who was in occupation on 2 April 1984. I understand that Mr. Stanhope was not, on that date, a tenant within the meaning of the Agriculture Act 1986 and is not, therefore, legally entitled to that compensation.
County councils are in much the best position to decide how to manage their estates in the light of prevailing local circumstances and to take into account the interests of their present tenants, well qualified outsiders who are looking for a holding to rent, ratepayers and the general rural community.
We have heard my hon. Friend's submission on behalf of his constituent. My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions, but he and I know that only the county counil can give satisfactory answers. I shall urge the council to reconsider this case with compassion and in the spirit of moral justice for which my hon. Friend has asked.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Five o'clock on Thursday afternoon.